Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strata title

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2024

1. ) S. A. NARAYANAN 2. ) VISWANATHAN S/O S.N.A.S.A ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR (kedua-duanya sebagai wasi-wasi dan pemegang-pemegang amanah harta pusaka S.N.A.S Sockalingam Chettiar) TAN SIAK TONG

Citation

PA-22NCvC-41-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-41-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed because they breached their obligations under the JVA by failing to remove the caveat or obtain beneficiary consent, thereby preventing issuance of strata titles and transfer of Units 1 and 2; as Defendant had completed construction and obtained the certificate of completion, Plaintiffs cannot insist on possession of Units 3 and 4 or claim rental or remediation past the defect liability period; Defendant's counterclaim ordering Plaintiffs to remove the caveat, keep the land unencumbered and register Defendant upon issuance of strata titles succeeds.
20 Mar 2024

1. ) S. A. NARAYANAN 2. ) VISWANATHAN S/O S.N.A.S.A ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR (kedua-duanya sebagai wasi-wasi dan pemegang-pemegang amanah harta pusaka S.N.A.S Sockalingam Chettiar) TAN SIAK TONG

Citation

PA-22NCvC-41-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-41-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs breached express obligations under the JVA by failing to remove the beneficiary’s caveat and to obtain consent for subdivision; this failure prevented issuance and transfer of strata titles and deprived Defendant of contractual entitlement to Units 1 and 2; accordingly Plaintiffs cannot demand possession of Units 3 and 4, cannot claim rental or post-defect-period remedial works, and Defendant’s counterclaim for removal of caveat, clearance of encumbrances and registration of Units 1 and 2 succeeds and is ordered.
28 Feb 2024

1. ) Wong Bak Kiong 2. ) Chong Shiuk Hien 3. ) Yee Siew Pooi 1. ) Namiq Kunimoto 2. ) Serai Saujana Management Corporation 3. ) SERAI SAUJANA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 4. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-129-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-129-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the foyer area was lawfully sold to the 1st Defendant as evidenced by the SPA, as-built drawings and the strata plan; the layout breached UBBL safety requirements but the sale was not void for illegality or public policy because there was no evidence the purchaser was aware of the non-compliance and the facts do not mirror cases of deliberate circumvention (eg Ideal Advantage); liability to rectify rests with the developer who designed/supplied the defective layout; accordingly Suit 129 was dismissed and Suit 451 allowed, ordering the developer to provide an accessible second emer…
19 Feb 2024

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN GENTING VIEW RESORT MERANTI APARTMENT KURNIA HALIM & OTHERS PENCELAH MLDC BERHAD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI MALAYSIA LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BERHAD)

Citation

CB-36-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-36-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court confined itself to whether the prohibitory order, writ of seizure and sale and sale order were regular in execution; having found the strata title to the unit was registered in the intervener's name (MLDC Berhad) and that statutory strata recovery mechanisms exist, the enforcement by prohibitory order and sale would unduly prejudice the registered proprietor and was inappropriate; accordingly the Court set aside the prohibitory order, the writ of seizure and sale and the sale order and awarded costs of RM7,000 subject to allocatur.
30 Jan 2024

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) BKNT HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH, SEBERANG PERAI UTARA, PULAU PINANG

Citation

PA-22NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

1st Defendant, as registered proprietor, obtained indefeasible title under s340(1) NLC; Plaintiff failed to prove any of the statutory exceptions (fraud, misrepresentation, insufficient or void instrument) or any conspiracy by 1st Defendant; Plaintiff had not paid full purchase price so developer was not a bare trustee; therefore Plaintiff's claim to set aside registration failed and must be dismissed.
22 Oct 2021

Lau Lie Nian 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-109-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-109-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court upheld the Sessions Court: the RM5,000 was a stakeholder sum (not a booking fee) payable to the solicitors; accordingly LAD calculation begins from the SPA date (25.09.2015) not the stakeholder payment date; the Housing Controller's extensions of time were valid and cannot be nullified in this private action absent prior judicial review in the High Court; the 2nd Respondent cannot be compelled to release stakeholder funds to pay LAD because clause 30 and s22E HDA prohibit release absent conditions and doing so would breach fiduciary, professional and statutory duties. Therefore no L…
22 Oct 2021

Ng Wai Keong 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-110-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-110-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The RM5,000 was a stakeholder sum held by the 2nd Respondent, not a booking fee, therefore under the SPA and HDA the LAD calculation commences from the SPA date (23.09.2015); the Housing Controller's extensions of time are valid and any challenge required judicial review in the High Court; consequently vacant possession was delivered within the approved time and no LAD is payable; the court will not order release of stakeholder funds contrary to clause 30 and s22E as that would breach fiduciary, professional and statutory duties and potentially constitute an offence.
21 Oct 2021

TARGET TERM SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO. 838284-P) 1. WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (REGISTRATION NO. 474/2009) PENCELAH MALAYSIAN LAND PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO. 334713-X)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-298-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-298-06/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held SPA and the transfer of 414 car parks unlawful and unenforceable because the car parks were used and intended to be used independently of the principal parcel, contravening Sections 4, 34(2) and 69 of the Strata Title Act; the Intervener and Plaintiff failed to prove bona fide purchaser status and valuable consideration under Section 340 NLC and had misrepresented facts to authorities, rendering the titles defeasible; estoppel could not bar statutory enforcement; accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim allowed.
10 Jun 2021

1. SIM NGEE SEN 2. SIM YEOK CHENG 3. A HWA 1. TALENT TEAM SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 515554-W) 2. MESSRS SIDEK TEOH WONG DENNIS (sued as a law firm)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-136-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-136-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was partly allowed: the Appellants are entitled to liquidated ascertained damages calculated from the date of payment of the booking fee in line with the Federal Court decision in PJD Regency, while the Sessions Court's factual findings that vacant possession was validly given and that the architect issued the common property certificate were not shown to be perverse or legally erroneous and are maintained; continuation against the 2nd Respondent was an abuse and dismissed.
27 Apr 2021

WAN NOOR KAMARIAH BINTI WAN JAAFAR 1. ARITAH REALTY SDN BHD 2. MUNIR & SONS (M) SDN BHD 3. SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN KUALA LUMPUR 5. KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI, MALAYSIA - RESPONDEN

Citation

W-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held that purchasers who had fully paid acquired equitable beneficial ownership and that Aritah Realty, having no beneficial interest, was a bare trustee and lacked legal capacity to sell; registration of transfer to Munir & Sons was effected by insufficient/void instruments and is defeasible under s340(2)(b) NLC, and SME Bank as the immediate chargee who took registration concurrently cannot claim protection as a subsequent purchaser under s340(3) proviso; fraud and illegality were properly pleaded and proven on the balance of probabilities; therefore the High Court judgment was se…