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

On the face of the pleadings and affidavits the Statement of Claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against Defendant 2 because the Sale and Purchase Agreement contains no express obligations imposed on Defendant 2 and Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing Defendant 2's liability or nexus to the alleged breaches; accordingly the claim against Defendant 2 is obviously unsustainable and was struck out under Order 18 r19 with costs.

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 (specific Performance) / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Application by Defendant 2 allowed; Plaintiff's claim against Defendant 2 struck out.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Striking Out Under Order 18 R19, Condition Precedent, Declaration, Injunction, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Property Law Equitable Remedies Specific Performance Striking Out Under Order 18 R19 Condition Precedent 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 3 Authorities cited 5 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 (specific Performance) / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against Defendant 2
  2. 2 Whether Defendant 2 as registered owner has enforceable obligations under the Sale and Purchase Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the condition precedent (CP) caused automatic termination and who bears liability

Ratio Decidendi

On the face of the pleadings and affidavits the Statement of Claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against Defendant 2 because the Sale and Purchase Agreement contains no express obligations imposed on Defendant 2 and Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing Defendant 2's liability or nexus to the alleged breaches; accordingly the claim against Defendant 2 is obviously unsustainable and was struck out under Order 18 r19 with costs.

Court Disposition

Application by Defendant 2 allowed; Plaintiff's claim against Defendant 2 struck out.

Orders

  • The claim by Plaintiff against Defendant 2 is struck out pursuant to Order 18 r19 Rules of Court 2012
  • Plaintiff to pay costs to Defendant 2 in the sum of RM5000.00 (subject to fee alocatur)