Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building plan approval

Legal area

Court

14 May 2023

ASTINAS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD GINMIT TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 24 is clear: the 24-month delivery period is measured from the date of approval of the proposed building plan by the local authority (MBJB). The Sessions Court erred in applying estoppel and illegality to reframe the contractual timeline; commencing works without approval did not create an underlying assumption sufficient for estoppel nor a nexus rendering the defence unavailable. Accordingly the defendant delivered within the contractual period and the respondent's LAD claim fails.
14 May 2023

ASTINAS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD GINMIT TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 24 of the SPA is clear and must be read as setting the 24-month period from the later of the date of proposed building plan approval by the local authority or the date of the agreement; commencement of works without approval and failure to inform did not create a representation or sufficient basis for estoppel nor render the contract unenforceable; the Vendor was therefore within the 24-month period (approval 4.10.2013; vacant possession 22.5.2014) and the Sessions Court’s finding awarding LAD was reversed.
21 Nov 2022

1. ) TEH POH HONG 2. ) CH'NG CHENG HAI KEJURUTERAAN HOCK KHENG SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-51-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-51-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held clause 10.1 of the SPA unambiguously made the plaintiffs responsible for complying with governmental and local authority requirements including applying for planning permission and building plan approval; plaintiffs' failure or refusal to obtain required approvals prevented the defendant from performing the reconstruction obligations under the Supplemental Agreement, entitling the defendant to terminate the Supplemental Agreement and to the release of the RM250,000 stakeholder sum; plaintiffs' declaratory relief was academic and trespass was not proven.
12 Nov 2019

Redha Resources Sdn Bhd 1. Majlis Agama Islam Selangor 2. Kolej Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Selangor Sdn Bhd 3. Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd

Citation

B-01(NCVC)(W)-51-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

B-01(NCVC)(W)-51-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Plaintiffs were not entitled to terminate the concession agreement because the alleged breaches (commencing works pending plan endorsement and delay in CCC) were not fundamental: plaintiffs knew of or acquiesced in the conduct, permitted occupation and received benefit, and CCC was obtained before trial; termination was therefore unlawful and appellant is entitled to restitutionary relief assessed by market value of the buildings (less sums already paid) plus arrears of rental and damages for losses naturally resulting from the breach; assessment and payment directions to be made by the trial…

Malaysia Case Law

ASTINAS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD GINMIT TRADING SDN BHD

ASTINAS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD GINMIT TRADING SDN BHD

1. ) TEH POH HONG 2. ) CH'NG CHENG HAI KEJURUTERAAN HOCK KHENG SDN BHD

Redha Resources Sdn Bhd 1. Majlis Agama Islam Selangor 2. Kolej Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Selangor Sdn Bhd 3. Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd