Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of mutual covenants

Legal area

Court

5 May 2025

Chang, Jen-Chih Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-644-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-644-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contemporaneous documents and the parties' conduct established delivery of vacant possession on 14.6.2018 and the defendant accepted post-delivery payment conduct amounting to waiver of Clause 25.1(c); no bona fide triable issues existed; therefore summary judgment ordering specific performance (or alternatively damages) was appropriate.
12 Oct 2023

1. ) Gregory Seow 2. ) Joanne Lee Saw Eng 1. ) KKHills Management Sdn Bhd 2. ) Teh bin Khuan 3. ) Lim Kian Chong 4. ) Hicom-Gamuda Development (Sdn Bhd)

Citation

BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Master Assignment by the Developer to the Residents' Association was valid and binding under the conditional benefit principle (Davies tripartite test satisfied) because the DMC and SPA formed the same transaction linking benefit and burden and purchasers had opportunity to reject the conditional benefit; however the RA's purported assignment to KKHills Management Sdn Bhd was invalid because that company, given its limited shareholding and directorship, was not the type of collective corporate entity contemplated by the DMC and the AGM resolutions effecting that assignment were null and v…
6 Sept 2023

1. ) AFFAN BIN MOHD NAWI 2. ) AHMAD ASRAF BIN ISHAK 3. ) CHAI KWAI YONG 4. ) CHAU KAH YEE 5. ) CHUA KENG HEE 6. ) DING MING DAK 7. ) DING PE FONG 8. ) FANG PEI LING 9. ) GOH CHUN GUAN 10. ) HASIAH BINTI ZAINAL@ZAINAL ABIDIN 11. ) HAYUSNITA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Preambles and the Site/Layout/Delineation plans incorporated into the SPAs (read with clause 34) constituted contractual promises that the Master Land would be developed strictly as a housing/residential development of 110 units; D3, by using its branding and promotional materials, made representations binding on it as collateral warranty/estoppel and plaintiffs relied on those representations; defendants were restrained by declaration and injunction from proceeding with the Phase 2 commercial conversion; there was no breach by defendants regarding a central refuse chamber as a constructed co…
6 Sept 2023

1. ) AFFAN BIN MOHD NAWI 2. ) AHMAD ASRAF BIN ISHAK 3. ) CHAI KWAI YONG 4. ) CHAU KAH YEE 5. ) CHUA KENG HEE 6. ) DING MING DAK 7. ) DING PE FONG 8. ) FANG PEI LING 9. ) GOH CHUN GUAN 10. ) HASIAH BINTI ZAINAL@ZAINAL ABIDIN 11. ) HAYUSNITA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the SPAs' preamble and First Schedule plans formed part of the contractual obligations and, interpreted under the HDA 1966 to maximize buyer protection, bound D1 and D2 to develop the Master Land as a 110-unit residential development; D3 was held to have made and held out representations (branding/marketing) and thus was bound by collateral representations; however the SPAs did not oblige the developer to build a central refuse chamber as common property and specific performance to compel construction of the remaining units within 36 months was refused; declarations and an…
27 May 2022

TEH SIOK YEN 1. ) Loke Wai Kuen 2. ) Lee Wei Lid

Citation

BA-12BC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court upheld Sessions Court's factual findings that 1st–3rd defendants' renovation works caused water seepage and were liable in negligence and private nuisance; however, Sessions Court erred in awarding excessive general damages without medical evidence and failing to consider mitigation, so general damages were reduced from RM200,000 to RM10,000; 4th defendant (developer) was not liable under the DMC or in tort because DMC did not bind non-signatory purchasers, clause 9 proviso excluded developer liability for others' breaches, there was insufficient proximity and causation and plainti…
2 Mar 2022

DHAMODARAN A/L MUNUSAMY 1. ) KAVARIAMAL A/P MUNUSAMY 2. ) TAMBYRASAH A/L VYTHILINGAM

Citation

AA-22NCvC-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 34 rule 2(4) ROC to set aside the default judgment because the defendants had engaged solicitors, provided documents and fees, and the non-compliance with pre-trial directions resulted from their solicitors' failings rather than any deliberate default by the defendants; relief was granted on terms requiring compliance within one month and payment of costs to the plaintiff.
13 Dec 2020

Persatuan Penduduk Senibong Villa, Taman Cahaya Kota Putri, Masai Johor Bahru 1. Tan Hock Seng 2. Victor Tan Han Fung

Citation

JA-12B-66-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-66-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sale and Purchase Agreement executed in the statutory prescribed form (Schedule G/Form H) prevails over contemporaneous non‑statutory documents; the DMC and related handbooks cannot impose terms that negate or are more onerous than the S&P, and there was no evidence homestay was unlawful, therefore the residents association could not lawfully deny the owners and their invitees access; appeal dismissed.
30 Oct 2020

D’DALES ASSOCIATION BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 742321H) NG CHEE CHOY (No. K/P: 660803-08-5321)

Citation

AA-A72NCVC-88-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCVC-88-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the plaintiff's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action and there are multiple triable issues (authority to collect, whether original deeds bind successor purchasers, alleged estoppel and quantum/existence of maintenance works) that require oral evidence and full trial; accordingly the defendant's strike‑out application was dismissed on the balance of probabilities and without costs.
BIJAK UTAMA SDN BHD V. ADWIN SDN BHD

Citation

BIJAK UTAMA SDN BHD V. ADWIN SDN BHD
Court

Malaysian court

The floor plans annexed to the sale agreements show the entrance lobbies are not within the parcels and therefore form common property; affixing metal gates on that common property breached clauses 3(i) and 9(8) of the Deed of Mutual Covenants; no substantive defence remained on those facts so an Order 14 summary declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction were properly granted; the Deed was valid with consideration in the mutual covenants.