Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Regulatory consent (pdc)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2024

IP SOFTCOM (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD TP CONCEPT (PENANG) SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-22NCVC-213-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-213-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the PJB did not make obtaining a MIDA licence a mandatory precondition; PDC consent was determinative and its refusal was outside the control of the parties; therefore the PJB could not be lawfully implemented and was void/frustrated, entitling the purchaser to recovery of the deposit; IP Softcom failed to prove breach or loss and thus could not forfeit the deposit or claim damages.
29 Apr 2024

TP CONCEPT (PENANG) SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 1081086-A] IP SOFTCOM (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.

Citation

PA-22NCVC-218-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-218-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that PDC consent was a necessary precondition outside the parties' control and that a MIDA licence was not a contractual precondition; because the requisite PDC consent was not obtained the PJB could not be enforced and was void, therefore the defendant was not entitled to forfeit the RM955,000 deposit and plaintiff's claim in Guaman 218 succeeds; defendant's reciprocal claim in Guaman 213 fails.