HHQ Empower

HHQ Cases & Facts


13 Dec 2022

IB Builders Sdn Bhd V DSS Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor I High Court
The case above involves a claim for specific performance made by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. In essence, the Plaintiff commenced a legal action for an order of specific performance agai[..]
Filter By Year

Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2022] MLJU 354 (Court Of Appeal)

OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD v PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2022] MLJU 354 (COURT OF APPEAL) AZIZAH NAWAWI, ABU BAKAR JAIS AND LEE HENG CHEONG JJCA Facts: The Respondent is the Developer of a housing project, The Sentral Residences (“the Project”). The Purchaser of A-31-G and A-31-F entered into a prescribed statutory sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with the Developer which Clause 25 and Clause 27 had prescribed the delivery period of 54 months. High Court’s Decision The High Court judge struck out the Purchaser’s Summary Judgement based on the following grounds: Purchaser’s claim is time barred; Purchaser is required to challenge the EOT by judicial review; and There is a waiver or estoppel against social legislations. Court of Appeal’s Decision Issue (i) Whether the Purchaser’s claim for LAD is statute barred The Court of Appeal held that since the Purchaser challenges both clause 25 and 27 of the SPA from the inception or execution of the SPAs, the cause of action should run from the date of execution of the SPAs which is on 11.07.2012 and 18.07.2012 respectively. Since the 6 year period had expired on 10.07.2018 and 17.07.2018 respectively when the Purchaser filed suit on 18.06.2020, the Purchaser’s claim is time barred. The Court of Appeal hence dismissed the Purchaser’s appeals with cost. This Case Update is intended to be informative & is not intended to be nor should be relied upon as a substitute for legal or any other professional advice. Written by: HEE SUE ANN LLB (Hons) Multimedia University ASSOCIATE (REAL ESTATE) sahee@hhq.com.my