COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN.BHD. KHONG YAO HAN & 57 ORG

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN.BHD. KHONG YAO HAN & 57 ORG

The Court allowed the appeals and struck out the plaintiffs' claims against both developer and architect because the SPAs unambiguously allow delivery of vacant possession of individual Parcels upon issuance of Partial CCC/Form F1, the architect owed no duty to purchasers to secure Full CCC/Form F and thus could not be liable for negligence or unlawful interference, and numerous purchasers had validly settled and been paid LAD thereby estopping further claims.

Citation
B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1594-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant Developer: Cosmopolitan Avenue Sdn. Bhd.; Appellant Architect: AR. Loo Chang Seng; Respondents Plaintiffs: Khong Yao Han & 57 Lagi
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Case Number
B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1594-08/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Striking Out Applications (order 18 R.19 ROC 2012)
Outcome
Appeals allowed. High Court's dismissal of striking out applications set aside. Plaintiffs' claims against both Defendants struck out.
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Liquidated Ascertained Damages (lad), Certificate of Completion and Compliance (full Ccc/form F; Partial Ccc/form F1), Striking Out Under O.18 R.19 ROC 2012, Architects' Duty of Care, Settlement Agreements and Estoppel, Statutory Certification Under UUKBSS
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Tort (negligence) Construction/building Law Civil Procedure Vacant Possession Liquidated Ascertained Damages (lad) Certificate of Completion and Compliance (full Ccc/form F; Partial Ccc/form F1) Striking Out Under O.18 R.19 ROC 2012 +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cosmopolitan Avenue Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant Developer

AR. Loo Chang Seng

Appellant Architect

Khong Yao Han & 57 Lagi

Respondents Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Striking Out Applications (order 18 R.19 ROC 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether architect owed a duty of care and was negligent/unlawfully interfered by issuing Form F1 instead of Form F
  2. 2 Whether delivery of vacant possession could validly be based on Partial CCC (Form F1) under the SPAs
  3. 3 Whether triable issues of contractual interpretation existed such that striking out was inappropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeals and struck out the plaintiffs' claims against both developer and architect because the SPAs unambiguously allow delivery of vacant possession of individual Parcels upon issuance of Partial CCC/Form F1, the architect owed no duty to purchasers to secure Full CCC/Form F and thus could not be liable for negligence or unlawful interference, and numerous purchasers had validly settled and been paid LAD thereby estopping further claims.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. High Court's dismissal of striking out applications set aside. Plaintiffs' claims against both Defendants struck out.

Orders

  • Allow Appeal B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1594-08/2022 and Appeal B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1654-09/2022 and set aside High Court decision dismissing striking out applications (Encls.12 and 14)
  • Strike out the entirety of the Plaintiffs-Respondents' claims against both Defendants-Appellants (Cosmopolitan Avenue Sdn. Bhd. and AR. Loo Chang Seng)