This website is
 sponsored.gif

banner.gif

 Welcome    Main    Forum    FAQ    Useful Links    Sample Letters   Tribunal  

 

COURT DECISIONS

More Pages >  A | B | C |  E |  F | G | H | I |  J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y 

Links to  websites for other sources of court decisions:

Malaysia Court Homepage - http://www.kehakiman.gov.my

Cases from Malaysia, Singapore and Other Jurisdictions - http://www.ipsofactoj.com


Cases - 2001
 

PREMIER MODEL (M) SDN BHD V. PHILEO PROMENADE SDN BHD & 1 ORS
 04 JANUARY 2001 - HIGH COURT [KUALA LUMPUR]
SAMAN PEMULA N0: S6-24-431-TAHUN 1999
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT.
Sometime in the middle of 1995 the Plaintiff purchased from the 1st Defendant 16 units of office/shoplots in a multi-storey building called Megan Phileo Promenade. The sale and purchase agreements of each of the 16 units contain similar terms and conditions. Among them it provides the right of the Defendant to collect various charges from the purchasers. Before the strata titles are issued to the individual units it was the responsibility of the Defendant as the Vendor to manage and administer the Common Property. For such purposes the 1st Defendant appointed the 2nd Defendant as its agent to manage, administer, upkeep, upgrade and maintain the Common Property and at the same time to bill and collect all the various charges from the purchasers in respect of their units.
 

Arab-Malaysian Finance Berhad v. Chan Sai Mee
05 JANUARY 2001 -  HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S2-24-978-2000]

LAND LAW: Charge - Order for sale - Cause to the contrary - Whether established - Developer's failure to obtain official approval for building plans - Whether sale and purchase agreement rendered void - Whether loan agreement affected - Whether defendant had shown "valid cause to the contrary" - National Land Code, s. 256(3)
 

PLAZA PEKELILING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION V. IGB CORPORATION BERHAD & 1 ORS
11 JANUARY 2001 -  MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR
SAMAN PEMULA NO: S6-24-640-2000
Satu Deklarasi bahawa plaintif adalah Management Corporation yang sah yang ditubuhkan dibawah Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 bagi blok A, B, C dan D (Low Rise 4 Storey) dan F (High Rise 17 Storey) di Jalan Tun Razak Kuala Lumpur (Geran 6851 Lot 644 Seksyen 47 Kuala Lumpur).
2) Satu Deklarasi bahawa plaintif adalah berkuasa dan bertanggungjawab untuk pengurusan seluruh kompleks yang dikenali sebagai Plaza Pekeliling termasuk bagi blok A, B, C dan D (Low Rise 4Y2 Storey) dan F (High Rise 17 Floor) di Jalan Tun Razak Kuala Lumpur (Geran 6851 Lot 644 Seksyen 47 Kuala Lumpur).
3) Defendan pertama menyerahkan akaun-akaun yang lengkap bagi kompleks yang dikenali sebagai Plaza Pekeliling termasuk bagi blok A, B, C dan D (Low Rise 4 Storey) dan F (High Rise 17 Storey) di Jalan Tun Razak Kuala Lumpur (Geran 6851 Lot 644 Seksyen 47 Kuala Lumpur) sehingga tarikh penyerahan kompleks tersebut kepada plaintif.
4) Defendan pertama menyerahkan kepada plaintif dokumen-dokumen berikut :-
(a) Pelan struktur.
(b) Pelan Mekanikal dan Elektrikal.
(c) Segala kontrak-kontrak yang ditandatangani oleh defendan pertama dengan pihak-pihak lain berkenaan dengan pengurusan kompleks tersebut.
(d) Segala dokumen-dokumen lain dalam simpanan defendan pertama berkenaan dengan pengurusan kompleks tersebut.
5) Defendan kedua menyerahkan kepada plaintif semua dokumen-dokumen dalam simpanan defendan kedua yang berkaitan dengan pengurusan kompleks tersebut.
6) Defendan kedua menyerahkan kepada plaintif akaun-akaun kutipan wang oleh defendan kedua daripada pihak lain berkenaan dengan pengurusan kompleks berkenaan.
7) Defendan pertama dan kedua membayar plaintif kos tindakan ini.
8) Relif-Relif yang lain dan wajar yang didapati suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
 

Cheong Bee Yong v. MBF Finance Bhd & Anor  
19 JANUARY 2001 -  HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S6-24-2576-99]

LAND LAW: Housing developers - Promotional brochure for sale of condominium units - Brochure stated developer would pay for interest on loan until Certificate of Fitness issued - Whether developer bound by words therein - Whether plaintiff relied on brochure to purchase condominium unit
CONTRACT: Loan - Interest payments - Interest payments on loan before issuance of Certificate of Fitness - Whether developer undertook to pay for interest before issuance of Certificate of Fitness in promotional brochure for sale of property - Whether plaintiff relied on such undertaking to purchase property
 

Chua Eng Hong & Anor v. Palm Springs Development Sdn Bhd
02 MAY 2001 -  HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[SUIT NO: S2-(S1)-22-365-1999]

Land Law: Housing developers - Sale and purchase agreement - Defendant failed to complete and deliver vacant possession within stipulated time - Failure to apply for extension under reg. 11(3) of the Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether the period of 36 months could be waived - Whether extension of time could be given
 

Kemayan Engineering (SEA) Pte Ltd V. Sunyap Development Sdn Bhd
10 MAY 2001 - HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK, KOTA KINABALU
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: K24-13-2000]
In this case, the plaintiff entered into two separate sale and purchase agreements, both dated 27 June 90 for purchase of two units of shoplots ie, Units No. B 51 and B 52 respectively at Second Floor, Centre Point, Kota Kinabalu from the defendants. All terms and conditions in the said agreements are similar and identical.
 

Ang Kee Sim v. Kembang Jaya Development Sdn Bhd
27 JUNE 2001 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, PENANG 
[CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-457-2000 (MT 4)]

CONTRACT: Specific performance - Sale and purchase agreement - Whether effective and applicable - Section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 - Whether applicable - Application for extension of time - Whether made in time - Whether plaintiff entitled to specific performance - Section 11(3) of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989
Contract:
Building contract - Delay in completion - Vendor unable to fulfil contract by completion date - Deduction of liquidated damages for delay - Whether allowed - Whether plaintiff entitled to specific performance
 

MBF FINANCE BHD V. NGOI THIAM WOH
09 AUGUST 2001 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, IPOH
[CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-68-99]
Introduction The plaintiff is a licensed finance company. It gave a loan of RM232,650 to the defendant on 19 November 1994 to finance the purchase of a unit of 'condotel' in Penang known as "Park Paradise of Penang" (Park Paradise). This loan was to be repaid over 15 years at a monthly installment of RM12,555.67.
 

PUBLIC FINANCE BERHAD V ZAINAL BIN OSMAN T/A PUTERA FOTOT STUDIO
30 AUGUST 2001 -  HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
GUAMAN NO MT3-22-1615-1998
The next and final point raised for the defendant is the alleged negligence in releasing the progress payments without studying the architect's certificates. The loan agreement does not appear to contain any obligation which requires the plaintiff to go behind the architect's certificate. Architects have the special professional skill and competence to certify the state of the building and the plaintiff is perfectly entitled to rely on these certificates issued by architects in order to justify the disbursements of the relevant progress payments, and that is precisely what the plaintiff has done in this case.
 

KC Chan Brothers Development Sdn Bhd - vs - Tan Kong Seng & Ors
07 SEPTEMBER 2001 -  HIGH COURT MALAYA, TEMERLOH
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: 11-1-2000 TO 11-26-2000]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Jurisdiction to entertain - Power of High Court to hear appeals from subordinate courts - Question of law - Whether substantially raised in notice of appeal or memorandum of appeal - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 27, 28
CONTRACT: Building contract - Breach - Defects - No notice as per sale and purchase agreement given to developer to repair defects - Whether purchasers may still sue developer for breach of contract - Whether purchasers estopped from bringing claim - Protection of house buyers - Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1982
CONTRACT: Building contract - Breach - Defects - Certificate of fitness for occupation issued by local authority - Whether purchasers precluded from suing developer for breach of contract - Whether specifications as per sale and purchase agreement and building plans met
CONTRACT: Building contract - Sale and purchase agreement - Approved building plans - Whether must be annexed to agreement - Whether a mandatory requirement - Whether may be deemed to have been annexed to agreement - Whether building plans part and parcel of agreement - Rights and liabilities of purchaser and developer - Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1982, reg. 12
CONTRACT: Building contract - Breach - Defects - Discovered after 12-month liability period - Whether purchaser may still sue developer for breach of contract under common law

More Pages >  A | B | C |  E |  F | G | H | I |  J | K | L | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y 

Main   Forum  FAQ  Useful Links  Sample Letters  Tribunal  

National House Buyers Association (HBA)

No, 31, Level 3, Jalan Barat, Off Jalan Imbi, 55100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: 03-21422225 | 012-3345 676 Fax: 03-22601803 Email: info@hba.org.my

© 2001-2009, National House Buyers Association of Malaysia. All Rights Reserved.