Malaysia Case Law

11 Sept 2023

IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BHD CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-177-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-177-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Order 33 r.2 may be invoked to order preliminary trial of issues, but Order 14A determination was inappropriate because the relevant contract clauses when read together raised factual disputes (certification of practical completion, state of rectification works, handover to authorities and deemed possession) that require witnesses and extrinsic evidence; therefore the plaintiff's application for summary determination under Order 14A is dismissed with costs.

• Vacant possession
• Liquidated damages
• Construction of contract clauses
• Summary judgment / summary determination (order 14a)
• Pre-trial determination of issues (order 33 r.2)

11 Sept 2023

EKAR LEGA SDN BHD CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-175-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-175-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for summary judgment under Order 14A is dismissed because the clauses relied upon, when read together, raise factual issues (completion certification, takeover by authorities, deemed delivery) that cannot be resolved on document construction alone and require witnesses and extrinsic evidence; therefore the matter is not suitable for final determination under Order 14A.

• Summary judgment
• Delivery of vacant possession
• Liquidated damages
• Construction of contract clauses
• Order 14a
• Order 33 r.2

AZALI B BAKAR V

Citation

AZALI B BAKAR V

Court

Malaysian court

The court held that a declaratory order was an appropriate remedy to determine the parties' rights where liability was disputed and the subject building was not complete at the time of filing; applying the Privy Council's construction in Loh Wai Lian, clause 18 created an obligation to pay a single ascertainable sum which only became due when the building was completed and vacant possession could be delivered, therefore the limitation period under s.6(1)(a) did not begin on 12 December 1986 and the claim was not time‑barred; consequentially the plaintiff was entitled to LAD at RM13.62 per day…

• Liquidated damages
• Declaratory relief
• Accrual of cause of action
• Construction of contract clauses
• Time-bar/limitation