Back
2019 MarsdenLR 3285
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEISURE FARM CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
CHOW TAT CHOW & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-13-01/2017]
The limit of six years under the Limitation Act applies separately to each year’s Maintenance Charges, distinguishing them from a running account.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: Section 6(1)(a) of the Limitations Act 1953 provides that actions founded on a contract or tort must be brought within six years. Facts of the Case: The Plaintiff claimed that the 1st Defendant breached his sale and purchase agreement by failing to pay Maintenance Charges from 2006 to 2016.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim for those charges was barred by limitation but allowed nominal damages for breach of contract.
Issues: Whether the Maintenance Charges were time-barred and whether the 2nd Defendant could be made liable for those charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Maintenance Charges were distinct obligations from a running account, thus affirming the limitation period was applicable.
Result: Judgment was entered against the 1st Defendant for Maintenance Charges and nominal damages, while the claim against the 2nd Defendant was dismissed, granting him an injunction against obstruction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. breach of contract by the 1st defendant for unpaid maintenance charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. legal limitation period and nature of debt under contract law. (Para 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 31) |
| 3. the limitation period for contract claims applies to each year of maintenance charges. (Para 15) |
| 4. the 2nd defendant cannot be forced into contract obligations without consent. (Para 22 , 30) |
| 5. court's finding that parties are bound only by contracts they entered. (Para 32 , 57) |
| 6. this case involves claims for unpaid maintenance charges and their limitations. (Para 35) |
| 7. plaintiff's restrictions on the 2nd defendant's access to his property constitute actionable nuisance. (Para 60 , 64) |
| 8. final verdict determining liabilities and dismissals. (Para 75) |
[1] This is an action by the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract and to recover arrears of payment thereunder and a claim to impose and to enforce a contract against the 2nd Defendant that the 2nd Defendant did not, and does not want to, enter into with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant is in turn met with a counterclaim in nuisance.
Background
[2] The Plaintiff was the developer of an estate which it called the "Leisure Farm Resort", in Johor. Leisure Farm Resort was established in 1991 and claims to be an exclusive and an award-wining resort development. The development was of an area that encompasses some 1,765 acres of land made up of individual lots with grants issued, of what has been loosely referred to as "freehold land" although the term does not exist in the National Land Code.
[3] Around Leisure Farm Resort is established a perimeter fence and there are 2 entrances. At each of the entrance is a guardhouse. These guardhouses are erected on lands in respect of which the Plaintiff has obtained temporary occupation licences from the Johor State Land Office.
[4] Leisure Farm Resort was a development that involved the sale by the Plaintiff to purchasers ie members of the public, of pieces of land with grants that make up the development. Having sold these pieces of land, the Plaintiff retains no interest, legal or equitable, in them. However, when the pieces of land in the development were sold, there were covenants in the sale and purchase agreements between the Plaintiff, as vendor, and the purchasers, that provided for various payments including payments for maintenance and security which shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as Maintenance Charges, unless indicated otherwise. Annexed to and made part of these sale and purchase agreements, was a set of bye-laws that the purchasers were to comply with.
[5] The 1st Defendant was a purchaser of a piece of land from the Plaintiff in Leisure Farm Resort. It was the Plaintiff's contention that the 1st Defendant had breached the sale and purchase agreement it had entered into with the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant had failed to pay the Maintenance Charges due thereunder for several years.
[6] The 1st Defendant however, has since sold his piece of land in Leisure Farm Resort to the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant on the other hand had not entered into, and does not want to enter into, any contract with the Plaintiff to commit himself to paying any Maintenance Charges. By this action, the Plaintiff seeks to impose such a contract on the 2nd Defendant.
The Case Against The 1st Defendant
[7] The 1st Defendant bought his piece of land in Leisure Farm Resort from the Plaintiff pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated the 22nd of November 1994 ("Plaintiff's SPA"). What the 1st Defendant purchased was a piece of land of 1.087 acres in size, held under H.S.(D) 194257 PTD 58604, Mukim of Pulai, District of Johor Bahru, State of Johor Darul Takzim, which was subsequently designated GERAN 334123 Lot 49446, Mukim Pulai, Daerah Johor Bahru Negeri Johor, and which land shall hereinafter be referred to as "Lot 49446". Lot 49446 was originally designated for agricultural use b
