Malaysia Case Law

14 Nov 2022

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court rejected the defendant's request to postpone the plaintiffs' summary judgment because the defendant filed Enclosure 30 belatedly, failed to show exceptional circumstances, the social purpose of Schedule H favoured timely resolution for purchasers, there was no risk of irreparable injustice to the defendant, and claims against the proposed public authority co-defendants were likely time-barred, so disposal of the summary judgment ought not be delayed.

• Summary judgment
• Joinder of parties
• Liquidated damages
• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Public authorities protection act
• Schedule h sale and purchase agreement

29 Jul 2022

Muhammad Muaz bin Abdul Malek Modal Ehsan Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Affidavit evidence and contemporaneous documents established delay and liability on the balance of probabilities at the upper end of the scale; therefore r.3(c) of O.22A is satisfied. Because this is an interlocutory application and quantum can be adjusted at trial, the court adopted the defendant's own most favourable LAD computation scenario for the interim stage and awarded RM510,964.96 as interim payment (RM425,804.15 for vacant possession and RM85,160.83 for common facilities).

• Interim payment under order 22a
• Liquidated damages
• Sale and purchase agreement disputes
• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Completion of common facilities

23 Aug 2021

1. YEOH WEE JIN [NO. K/P: 830831075509] 2. LEE GIN ANG [NO. K/P: 550418085176] IDEAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT: 553203-T]

Citation

CA-A72NCVC-233-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court

Magistrates' Court

Case number

CA-A72NCVC-233-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the defendant was not entitled to set off the RM32,580.00 discount and the LAD must be calculated on the purchase price expressly stated in the SPA (RM325,800.00). The discount/credit note was not part of the SPA nor supported by admissible evidence as a binding amendment; therefore defendant breached the SPA and must pay LAD calculated on the SPA price.

• Liquidated ascertained damages
• Sale and purchase agreement (schedule h)
• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Set-off
• Statutory contract interpretation
• Calculation of damages

6 May 2021

KOPERASI PERMODALAN FELDA MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) XXXX

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2606-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCvC

Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2606-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The architect's letters did not satisfy Clause 13.1.1 because they did not state the architect's opinion that events were causes beyond the developer's control nor refer to the SPAs; delays caused by the main contractor and its restructuring were not beyond the developer's control; therefore the architect's letters were not valid extensions of time and the 1st Respondent was liable for LAD from 5.6.2015 to 30.12.2015. The conspiracy claim failed because issuing extensions in the course of contractual duty is not an unlawful overt act and the Appellant produced no credible evidence of agreemen…

• Liquidated ascertained damages
• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Extension of time
• Architect's duties and certificates
• Certificate of completion and compliance (ccc)
• Conspiracy (tort)

16 Mar 2021

CHIN YONGQIN (NRIC NO.: 901029-01-5643) PROSPER PLUS INDUSTRY SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 251713-A)

Citation

JA-11ANCVC-17-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-11ANCVC-17-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Controller's grant of extensions under regulation 11(3) HDR 1989 is invalid per Ang Ming Lee, therefore the original 36‑month completion period in the Schedule H contract applies; LAD is calculated from date of payment of the booking fee per the Federal Court in PJD Regency; rebate/discount cannot be used to reduce the base for LAD; respondent failed to raise triable issues to defeat summary judgment.

• Liquidated damages
• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Summary judgment
• Regulation 11(3) hdr 1989
• Judicial review
• Estoppel

CHUNG MAY YEN V PUNCAKDANA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

CHUNG MAY YEN V PUNCAKDANA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

Court held defendant liable: delays were caused by the developer's failures (not by authorities), no extension of time had been applied for or granted, clause 9.03 did not operate to excuse performance, plaintiff validly terminated after giving notice and allowing a reasonable additional period, and defendant must refund monies paid and pay interest and costs.

• Delay in delivery of vacant possession
• Waiver
• Termination of contract
• Refund and interest