Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2978
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
HO KAM WAH @ HO KIM WAH – Appellant
Versus
BEGAN LAND SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-473-06-2020]
A consent order can only be terminated prospectively for breach; it cannot be rescinded ab initio, establishing that prior performance obligations remain intact despite breaches.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 – Sections 40 and 56 – Consent order – Plaintiff sought to terminate the consent order for breach alleging non-compliance by the defendant – Defendant argued obligation conditions to perform – Consent order can only be terminated prospectively and cannot be rescinded ab initio, as affirmed in Berjaya Times Square and Turf Club Auto Emporium cases. (Paras 25, 30, 32, 34)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to deliver housing units and obtain necessary completion certificates within the agreed timeline. The defendant argued it met its obligations but was conditioned upon the plaintiff's actions and timely land transfer. (Paras 4-13)
Findings of Court: Court ruled that the plaintiff's application for termination fails as defendant did not refuse to perform obligations entirely, and past benefits are not rescinded. (Paras 35)
Issues: Can a consent order be terminated for breach? Is the plaintiff entitled to termination or must she seek enforcement of the consent order instead? (Paras 1, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: A consent order holds that time is not of the essence; thus, a mere delay does not justify termination unless entire non-performance is displayed, further established by precedents. (Paras 30-32)
Result: Application for termination of the consent order dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant. (Paras 35)
Introduction
[1] Can a consent order which encompasses a settlement agreement arrived at between parties, be terminated for breach. That question lies at the heart of these proceedings begun by originating summons.
[2] The plaintiff, Ho Kam Wah@ Ho Kim Wah, has applied in this action, to terminate a consent order dated 28 June 2016 she entered into with the the defendant, Began Land Sdn Bhd, in another suit, Shah Alam Civil Action No 22NCVC-627-11/2015 ("Suit 627"). The precise orders the plaintiff seeks are:
A. A declaration that the consent order dated 28 June 2016 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in the Shah Alam High Court suit no 22NCVC-627-11/2015 stands terminated, and consequent upon such termination,
(i) The defendant shall account for or refund all benefits that the defendant has received under or pursuant to the consent order within 30 days from the date of this order; and
(ii) Damages to be assessed by this honourable Court and be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff; or
B. In the alternative to the prayer A above,
(i) The defendant shall complete development of the piece of land held under title No Geran 47974 Lot No 2890 (now known as PT 74914 and PT 74915) Mulik Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor (the "said Land") in accordance with the approved building plans as required under the consent order, and deliver to the plaintiff the plaintiff's entitlement under the consent order within 30 days from the date of this order; and
(ii) Damages for the defendant's delay in delivery of the plaintiff's entitlement under the consent order be assessed by this honourable Court and be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Factual Background
[3] To better understand the gravamen of the plaintiff's case, it is necessary to state some background facts which are not in dispute.
[4] In November 2015, the plaintiff instituted Suit 627 against the defendant. On 28 June 2016, the parties entered into a consent order to settle the case. The consent order insofar as material provides:
(i) Bahawa defendan akan memajukan tujuh (7) unit rumah kediaman berkembar tiga (3) tingkat dengan keluasan tanah sebanyak tiga ribu dua ratus (3,200) kaki persegi iaitu empat puluh (40) kaki kali lapan puluh (80) kaki setiap satu dengan kawasan dibina ("built up") seluas kira-kira lima ribu (5,000) kaki persegi berdasarkan pelan-pelan pembinaan yang telah diluluskan ("approved building plans") oleh pihak berkuasa berhubung pembinaan di atas hartanah yang dipegang di bawah hak milik No geran 47974 Lot no 2890 (sekarang dikenali sebagai PT 74914 dan PT 74915) Mukim Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor ("Hartanah Tersebut") dalam tempoh tiga puluh enam (36) bulan dari tarikh perintah ini;
(ii) Bahawa defendan akan memajukan dua (2) unit rumah kediaman jenis rumah bandar ("town houses") di atas lot tanah individu yang sama berkeluasan tanah sebanyak satu ribu lapan ratus (1,800) kaki persegi iaitu dua puluh empat(24) kaki kali tujuh puluh lima (75) kaki dengan kawasan dibina ("built up") seluas kira-kira satu ribu (1,000) kaki persegi setiap satu berdasarkan pelan-pelan pembinaan yang telah diluluskan ("approved building plans") oleh pihak berkuasa berhubung pembangunan di atas hartanah tersebut dalam tempoh tiga puluh enam (36) bulan dari Tarikh perintah ini;
(ix) bahawa peguamcara defendan adalah diberi kuasa yang tidak terbatal ("irrevocably authorized") untuk menyerahkan ("deliver") borang-borang pindah milik (borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara 1965) memihak plaintif, surat-suratan ikatan hak milik-hak milik ("original documents of title"), suratan ikatan hak milik strata ("original strata document of title") dan kunci-kunci berhubung unit-unit rumah kediaman berkembar dan rumah kediaman jenis rumah bandar ("town houses") yang dirujuk dalam perenggan (i) dan (ii) di atas apabila Certificate of Practical Completion untuk bangunan unit-unit rumah kediaman yang dirujuk di perenggan (i) dan (ii) di atas dikeluar
