TNO MOLECQ (SA) SDN BHD 1. ) TANJONG WAHYU SDN BHD 2. ) PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

TNO MOLECQ (SA) SDN BHD 1. ) TANJONG WAHYU SDN BHD 2. ) PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

The court refused to strike out the plaintiff's claim because material facts are disputed and require oral evidence and documentary proof at a full trial; striking out is a drastic remedy reserved for plain and obvious cases and here the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action (including claim for specific performance and declarations) that cannot be resolved on affidavit alone.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-55-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: TNO MOLECQ (SA) SDN BHD; Defendant 1: TANJONG WAHYU SDN BHD; Defendant 2: PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-55-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale and Purchase) and Specific Performance / Interlocutory Decision on Striking Out Application (order 18 R.19)
Outcome
Application by Defendant First to strike out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Condition Precedent, Striking Out (order 18 Rule 19), Declaration, Deposit Refund, Development Order/plan Approval
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Real Property Administrative Law Specific Performance Condition Precedent Striking Out (order 18 Rule 19) Declaration +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TNO MOLECQ (SA) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

TANJONG WAHYU SDN BHD

Defendant 1

PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale and Purchase) and Specific Performance / Interlocutory Decision on Striking Out Application (order 18 R.19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the sale and purchase agreement was automatically terminated by failure to satisfy condition precedents within agreed time
  3. 3 Whether factual disputes (including MBSA development order, access road/CP4, and whether extensions were valid) preclude summary dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the plaintiff's claim because material facts are disputed and require oral evidence and documentary proof at a full trial; striking out is a drastic remedy reserved for plain and obvious cases and here the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action (including claim for specific performance and declarations) that cannot be resolved on affidavit alone.

Court Disposition

Application by Defendant First to strike out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application (Lampiran 23) dismissed
  • Costs of RM3000.00 payable by Defendant First to Plaintiff (subject to taxation)