Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies for breach

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2024

KHOO SOON LEE REALTY SDN BHD 1. ) MAHESWARY A/P RAMASAMY 2. ) UMESWARAN A/L MOORTHY

Citation

BL-22NCvC-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-14-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the defendants materially breached the SPA by failing to pay the outstanding balance of RM1,480,000; defendants' admissions and documentary record entitled the plaintiff to enforce contractual remedies under the SPA and Supplemental Agreement, namely forfeiture/liquidated damages (RM200,000), vacant possession within seven days, rental arrears from June 2022 and costs of RM30,000.
12 Jul 2023

1. ) OW FOOK LIN 2. ) OW YOKE CHAN 3. ) OW HWEE SAN Boon Wee Peng

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was a concluded contract by objective evidence of offer, acceptance and consideration despite the SPA remaining unsigned; the RM180,000 paid constituted a deposit/earnest money which served as security for performance and was properly forfeited when the plaintiffs failed to complete; trial judge's factual findings were not disturbed on appeal.
2 Oct 2022

CITYVILLA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 1. ) BALA SUBRAMANIAM A/L RASU C/O KENCANA CORPORATION ADVISORY SDN BHD [SEBAGAI PELIKUIDASI SYARIKAT DINDING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) KOH KING LING 3. ) LING ING HOOK 4. ) TI SWEE YENG 5. ) TETUAN ZAHIR K

Citation

JA-22NCvC-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because D1 assumed all Plaintiff's liabilities by novation and thereby substantially performed the JVA, the alleged non-payment of RM2,207,176.00 did not amount to a total failure of consideration permitting rescission; the Said Letter was not proved by original document and did not amend the JVA; clause 11 permitted the POA and it could not be declared void; Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought on the balance of probabilities.
22 Oct 2019

AUSTIN HEIGHTS SDN. BHD (COMPANY NO. 599146-X) 1. TEO KIM KEONG (NRIC No.: 820226015437) 2. LIM HUI JIAN (NRIC NO.: 830102055444)

Citation

. JA-12ANCVC-39-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

. JA-12ANCVC-39-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the respondents have locus standi to sue despite the deed of assignment; Section 22C is procedural in nature and failure to notify the financier does not bar the action though the financier should be notified; the deed of assignment could not be read to extinguish purchasers' substantive rights in every case; the Strata Management Act does not oust the purchasers' right to sue the developer in court. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the matters remitted to the Sessions Court for final determination.

Malaysia Case Law

KHOO SOON LEE REALTY SDN BHD 1. ) MAHESWARY A/P RAMASAMY 2. ) UMESWARAN A/L MOORTHY

1. ) OW FOOK LIN 2. ) OW YOKE CHAN 3. ) OW HWEE SAN Boon Wee Peng

CITYVILLA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 1. ) BALA SUBRAMANIAM A/L RASU C/O KENCANA CORPORATION ADVISORY SDN BHD [SEBAGAI PELIKUIDASI SYARIKAT DINDING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) KOH KING LING 3. ) LING ING HOOK 4. ) TI SWEE YENG 5. ) TETUAN ZAHIR K

AUSTIN HEIGHTS SDN. BHD (COMPANY NO. 599146-X) 1. TEO KIM KEONG (NRIC No.: 820226015437) 2. LIM HUI JIAN (NRIC NO.: 830102055444)