Malaysia Case Law

11 Dec 2023

JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN 2. ) VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN 3. ) TETUAN TING & TING

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-84-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-12BNCvC-84-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Appellant made material misrepresentations about the location of Unit 39-07 which the Respondents relied upon to enter the S&P; the Session Court's factual findings were not plainly wrong and the High Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal, upheld the buy-back order at the purchase price RM543,322.00, upheld the general damages of RM5,000.00, reduced costs to RM5,000.00, and allowed the Respondents' cross-appeal to include a rebate of RM23,731.39 to be paid by the Appellant with 5% interest from 11.12.2023 until full settlement.

• Misrepresentation
• Rescission / buy-back
• Rebate
• Costs
• Interest
• Vacant possession

6 Dec 2019

SRI DAMANSARA SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 110516-H) 1. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. FONG SOO KEN (NRIC NO.: 580724-08-6904) 3. YOA KIAN HOW (NRIC NO.: 580724-08-6904)

Citation

BA-25-50-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-25-50-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Regulation 11(3) of the HDR is ultra vires the HDA (per Ang Ming Lee), therefore the Controller's purported extension to 42 months is invalid; parties are bound by Schedule H which prescribes a 36 months period running from the date of the SPA; the tribunal erred in computing the period from the part payment, in failing to consider the rebate and the counterclaim, and in omitting the claim on common facilities; the High Court quashed the tribunal decision and in the interest of justice made a substitute award ordering the developer to pay RM39,327.10 plus interest and taxed costs as computed.

• Schedule h
• Extension of time
• Regulation 11(3) hdr
• Liquidated damages
• Rebate
• Certiorari

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN PULAU PINANG V LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI PULAU PINANG & ANOR

Citation

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN PULAU PINANG V LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI PULAU PINANG & ANOR

Court

Malaysian court

The Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction to hear or decide an appeal against the imposition of the development charge because no proper appeal against that condition was before it; refusal to grant a rebate is not a condition imposed in granting planning permission and thus not appealable under s.23(1)(a); the Board committed a jurisdictional error and adopted unfair procedure by considering and granting relief on matters not properly before it, warranting quashing by certiorari.

• Certiorari
• Development charge
• Planning permission
• Rebate
• Appealability
• Jurisdictional error