Malaysia Case Law

25 Oct 2023

LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) WONG BOON LENG

Citation

B-01(A)-527-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

A

Case number

B-01(A)-527-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed. The hazardous indoor installation of outdoor AC condensers amounted to a defect within the SPA Defects Liability Period (clause 29(1)); therefore limitation under s16N(2) HDA accrued under proviso (b) and the TTPR claims were timely. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction because the SPA, approved plans and vendor's admission established the CACS promise and the vendor's unilateral deviation breached the SPA.

• Sale and purchase agreement (spa)
• Defects liability period (dlp)
• Tribunal jurisdiction under s16n hda
• Limitation period
• Judicial review / certiorari
• Costs

PALMERSTON HOLDINGS SDN BHD V CHONG SIEW ENG

Citation

PALMERSTON HOLDINGS SDN BHD V CHONG SIEW ENG

Court

Malaysian court

The SPA did not grant the vendor a right to a decree of specific performance; therefore plaintiff cannot obtain specific performance. Because defendant defaulted in payments, the vendor validly annulled the SPA under clause 9(1)(a) and is entitled to apply the clause 9 distribution (including 20% forfeiture where instalments paid exceed 50% of purchase price); defendant's counterclaim was not time-barred as it was filed after plaintiff's final demand in June 2002 and within limitation periods.

• Specific performance
• Sale and purchase agreement (spa)
• Annulment of spa under contractual forfeiture clause
• Limitation act 1953 (statute of limitations)
• Housing developers (control and licensing) regulations 1989