Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Set-off/cross-claim

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2021

BJ HOMES DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 623575-W) LIM LAY IMM (No. K/P: 610521-02-5202)

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-37-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-37-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court was not plainly wrong: the developer failed to deliver vacant possession within the contractual period, thereby incurring LAD; the purchaser was entitled to set-off LAD against outstanding instalments because the cross-claim arose from the same transaction and it would be manifestly unjust to ignore it; the asserted 9% discount was unilateral and not part of the SPA; the developer's termination was wrongful; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the lower court's orders were upheld.
S.E.A. HOUSING CORP. SDN. BHD. V. LEE POH CHOO

Citation

S.E.A. HOUSING CORP. SDN. BHD. V. LEE POH CHOO
Court

Malaysian court

Clause 32 was void because it was inconsistent with rule 12(1)(r) of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Rules 1970 which mandates indemnity for delayed delivery; therefore the developer remained liable for liquidated damages and the purchaser lawfully set off those liquidated damages against the final instalment. The purchaser's separate claim for loss of rent failed for insufficient evidence and is precluded by the comprehensive indemnity under r.12(1)(r).