RHB BANK BHD V. AMALAN
TEPAT SDN BHD & ORS 16 JANUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, MELAKA
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: 24-183-2005] Application: [1] This is the plaintiff's application by way of
an originating summons in encl (1) under O. 17 r. 1(1)(a) of the Rules of
the High Court 1980 for relief by way of interpleader, seeking inter alia
a determination as to whether the balance of the second and third defendants'
housing loan should be released by the plaintiff to the first defendant
vide the plaintiff's undertaking dated 23 March 1996 given to the first
defendant pursuant to an irrevocable authority given by the second and third
defendants to the plaintiff.
GAN HWA KIAN & ANOR v. SHENCOURT SDN BHD 8 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S2-24-1208-2001] CONTRACT: Sale and purchase of property - Delay in completion
- Rescission - Time of essence - Whether plaintiffs entitled to rescind
contract - Whether plaintiffs entitled to refund of monies paid for purchase
- Whether plaintiffs’ entitlement to liquidated damages took away right
to rescind - Whether plaintiffs could recover insurance premium paid - Contracts
Act 1950, ss. 56(1), 76
WALTER PATHROSE GOMEZ
& ORS V. SENTUL RAYA SDN BHD 26 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA
LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S6-24-2072-2003] LAND LAW: Housing developers - Damages for late delivery - Whether
purchasers could set off against balance sum of purchase price due to developer
- Whether purchasers entitled to liquidated damages under sale and purchase
agreement - Whether time of the essence - Whether s. 56 Contracts Act applicable CONTRACT: Building contract - Delay - Damages for late delivery -
Whether purchasers could set off against balance sum of purchase price due
to developer - Whether purchasers entitled to liquidated damages under sale
and purchase agreement - Whether time of the essence - Whether s. 56 Contracts
Act applicable
WONG THAI KUAI & ANOR V.
KANSAS CORPORATION SDN BHD 27 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT [KUALA LUMPUR]
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. D5-28-364-2006 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners brought this winding-up petition against the Respondent
pursuant to section 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act) on the ground
that the Respondent was unable to pay its debt and that it is just and equitable
that the Respondent company be wound-up.
2. The Petitioners claim from the Respondent for a sum of RM320,826.30 being
liquidated damages for late delivery of shop-houses built by the Respondent.
A statutory notice under section 218 of the Act has been issued to the Respondent.
There is no judgment obtained by the Petitioners in respect of the amount
claimed.
LSSC DEVELOPMENT
SDN BHD V. THOMAS IRUTHAYAM & ANOR 14 MARCH 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-02-407-2005] [1] This appeal raises a short question. It is this. What are the remedies
open to an innocent party where there is a breach of contract? One would
have thought that this rather basic question had been answered by the courts
of England at least by the mid 19th Century through the doctrine of repudiation.
See, Philpot v. Evans [1839] 151 ER 200, 202; Ripley v. M'Clure [1849] 154
ER 1245, 1251. Where a promisor wrongfully repudiates a contract in its
entirety, the promisee has a choice. He or she may elect to accept the repudiation,
treat the contract as at an end and sue for damages. The rationale is that
the primary obligation to perform the promise made is substituted with a
secondary obligation to compensate the promisee for the breach. ( See also -
Thomas Iruthayam & Anor v. LSSC Development Sdn Bhd
(10 MARCH 2005 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM)
HENG HANG KHIM V. SINEO ENTERPRISE
SDN BHD 6 APRIL 2007 - HIGH COURT [JOHOR BAHRU]
SAMAN PERMULAAN NO: 24 - 423 - 1999 (4)
Dalam perkara yang diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 56 Akta Kontrak 1950
Dan Dalam perkara yang diperuntukkan di bawah Peraturan 11, Peraturan-Peraturar
Pemaju Perumahan (kawalan & Pelesenan 1989 DanDalam perkara mengenai Perjanjian
Jual Beli bertarikh 3.10.1995 untuk pembeliai satu unit kondominium yang
dikenal sebagai Unit #13A-03A5 Type A, Block 2 Skudai Parade, Johor Bahru,
Johor
AU MENG NAM & ANOR v.
UNG YAK CHEW & ORS 12 JULY 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: J-01-82-2005] LAND LAW:
Indefeasibility of title and interests - Forged transfer
- Whether purchaser acquired indefeasible title - Whether words "to whom
it may subsequently be transferred" in s. 340(3)(a) NLC referred to immediate
purchaser or subsequent purchaser - Whether Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v.
Boonsom Boonyanit decided per incuriam - Whether binding precedent - Whether
distinguished - National Land Code, s. 340(2), (3)
SYARIKAT GUNUNG
SEJAHTERA SDN BHD v. LIM SZE ON & ORS 16 JULY 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: A-02-256-2002] "Housing development", meaning of - Housing Development (Control & Licensing)
Act 1966, ss. 3, 5, 6, 18 - Housing Developers (Control & Licensing) Regulations
1989, regs. 2, 11, Schedule G
