Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale and purchase agreements

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2025

SAVANDARAJAN A/L SUBRAMONIAN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) GOH SWEE WAN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-829-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-829-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and multiple discrepancies in the plaintiff's documentary evidence (inconsistent name spellings, differing grant numbers, unproven lot areas), absence of the plaintiff's interest in the Trust Deed schedule, lack of proof of payment and the official search showing registration in the defendant trustee meant the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was legal and beneficial owner of the four sub-lots; therefore the originating summons was dismissed with costs.
21 Feb 2025

1. ) ANG BEE CHIN 2. ) NG SWEE KIM 3. ) LEE SOO YING 4. ) CHING THONG LOO 5. ) NG LAI HENG 6. ) OOI SHU XIN 7. ) LOW SIEW EAN 8. ) ANG POH HONG 9. ) LEE TEIK MENG 10. ) LEE JIANG HENG 11. ) LIM TENG HO 12. ) KHOR BEE FUNG 13. ) SOON CHOON H

Citation

PA-22NCvC-49-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-49-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the plaintiffs' cause of action was contractual in substance because it arose from sale and purchase agreements executed in 2012–2013; accordingly the cause of action accrued at the execution/completion point and is governed by Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, rendering the present proceedings time-barred; consequently the consolidated suits were dismissed with costs.
13 Sept 2024

SHRIDHAYA HOLDINGS SDN BHD (Dalam likuidasi) NATIONAL LAND FINANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCvC-809-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-809-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The subpoena was properly issued and should not be set aside because the Applicant is a relevant and material witness who executed the Acknowledgement and SPAs; the documents sought are identifiable, relevant to parties' conduct after the option period, not a fishing expedition and no oppression or privilege justified setting aside; application dismissed with costs RM5,000.
19 May 2024

1. ) YAP SENG MAW 2. ) YAP ST MUAN 3. ) YAP ST KEAT 4. ) YAP ZI HENG 5. ) CHOW MING MING 6. ) LEE LIN WEI 7. ) ONG BOEY ENG 8. ) TAN ZHI KAI 9. ) LEE NYOK PENG 1. ) LIM TIAN HUAT (sebagai Penerima dan Pengurus Eco Homes Builders Sdn Bhd) 2.

Citation

JA-22NCC-57-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-57-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the subject properties were charged under a registered debenture and legal charges which expressly prohibited dealing without the bank's prior written consent, SPAs executed without that consent did not confer enforceable rights against the bank or its receivers; therefore claims against the chargee and receivers were plainly unsustainable and properly struck out, rendering the interim injunction academic.
26 Oct 2022

1. ) MUKESH KUMAR A/L M S KAPOOR 2. ) RITA KUMARI A/P BRAHAM SHARAN KALIA 3. ) KOAY TENG KEONG 4. ) TAN KOK NEE 5. ) OOI CHEE KHEONG 6. ) OOI CHENG HUAT 7. ) KHOO POH GIOK 1. ) TERANG MURNI SDN BHD 2. ) TAN & TAN DEVELOPMENTS BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-225-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-225-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Tan & Tan acted as agent of Terang Murni; Tan & Tan’s sales representatives made false and/or negligent representations about the nature of the penthouse units that materially induced plaintiffs to enter S&P agreements; the delivered units were not bona fide penthouses but mirror-image combinations of two standard units (dual-sub units); plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the S&P agreements or, alternatively, have damages assessed under Order 37, and are awarded collective costs.
22 Jul 2022

Ramli bin Dahari 1. ) Mohd Hainuddin bin Subahi 2. ) Mohd Shahindar bin Subahi 3. ) Penghuni-Penghuni 4. ) Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd 5. ) Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendants proved valid earlier sale agreements, long uninterrupted possession, payment of quit rents, custody of the original Issue Document of Title and bona fide conduct; the Plaintiff lacked knowledge, failed to plead material allegations of fraud and did not produce the original title when procuring registration, so the Plaintiff has no proprietary interest and the Defendants are the beneficial owners; revocation of the Letter of Administration was not granted because relief requires a separate Order 72 application.
1 Nov 2021

1. ) ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) MARSLAND DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) Tang Twang Loi 2. ) Lau Teng Tiong

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-30-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The developer’s admitted failure to deliver vacant possession by a contractual date made time of the essence and amounted to a fundamental breach; therefore the purchasers validly terminated the SPA, no triable issues arose from prior documents or Bumiputera designation because the SPA and Overriding Agreement superseded prior documents, and summary judgment under Order 81 r1 was properly granted and should be affirmed.
7 Oct 2021

1. ) TAN LEONG HENG 2. ) CHIANG MEI YOKE 3. ) TAN ENG KHEE 4. ) CHEOK KOK BENG 5. ) LEE CHOY LOCK 6. ) SEK WAI CHIN 7. ) MAKMUR INFINITI SDN BHD 8. ) CHAN SAY HWA 9. ) CHOW PUI LING 10. ) VERSATILE UNION SDN BHD 11. ) GOBINDER SINGH A/L NAR

Citation

WA-22NCC-46-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-46-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The CPCs issued by the vendor’s consulting engineer and corroborating site evidence and expert reports established that the Basic Infrastructural Works (service roads, drains, water mains, electrical ducting and related items) were provided in accordance with the SPAs; letters notifying vacant possession combined with clause 7.2(b) meant vacant possession was deemed delivered after 14 days; plaintiffs therefore failed to prove breach of the SPAs and are not entitled to declarations or liquidated damages; claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
1 Apr 2021

XXXX 1. ) CHANDRA SEGAR A/L L MARULTAMULTH 2. ) Philomena Georgina a/p John Thomas

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1785-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1785-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the SPAs were sham moneylending transactions or that APE carried on a moneylending business; documentary and witness evidence to prove interest payments and funding was lacking and key witnesses were not called; therefore the High Court's finding of illegal moneylending and its consequential orders were erroneous and Appeal No.1785 is allowed and Appeal No.1786 dismissed.