The binding nature of contract terms supersedes any prior oral representations, affirming the adequacy of damages as a remedy over injunctions in commercial property disputes.

[1] Enclosure 3 is the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant and its servants or agents from:

i) modifying, altering or dealing in any manner whatsoever with LG- 27 which is identified and marked in the lower ground floor plan of the sale and purchase agreement dated 9 May 2007 made between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the SPA");

ii) making any physical changes or amendments or modifications to the lower ground floor plan for LG-27 in the SPA save to complete LG-27 and to take all actions to carry out all necessary works to place it in such condition and state for delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiff until trial of this action.

[2] Enclosure 10 is the 1st defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim under O 18 r 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the RHC 1980.

Background Facts

[3] The 1st defendant is the developer of the project known as "Empire Subang" and the plaintiff is the purchaser for one of the commercial units (the parcel) in the said project.

[4] A SPA and the Deed of Mutual Covenant was signed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

[5] The plaintiff's case is that it was induced to purchased parcel LG-27 on the 1st defendant's oral representation that parcel LG-27 would have dual frontage or entrance.

[6] The 1st defendant denies this and said that there is no dual frontage or entrance. The 1st defendant also says that the plaintiff's parcel is LG-26.

[7] The 1st defendant further contended that LG-27 has been renumbered and re designated as LG-26. The 1st defendant also denies the existence of the oral representation and alleges that the term of the SPA and the Deed of Mutual Covenant negates the plaintiff's allegation.

[8] Plaintiff then filed the application herein for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant and its servant or agents from inter alia, modifying, altering, dealing, make any changes or modifications to the lower ground floor plan for LG-27 in the SPA save to complete LG-27 and to take all actions or carry out all necessary works to place it in such conditions and state for delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiff until trial of this action.

[9] The basis of the plaintiff's application is that:

i) there is a serious issue to be tried or triable issues in relation to the oral representation, interpretation of the SPA and the conflicting building plans.

ii) the justice of the case lies with the plaintiff since this case involved immovable property, damages is not an adequate remedy,

iii) There is no delay on the plaintiff's part in filing this application.

[10] The 1st defendant on the other hand filed an application to strike out the plaintiff's claim under O 18 r 19 (1) of the RHC on the grounds that:

i) there is no reasonable cause of action at all and the plaintiff's case should be struck out in limine.

ii) without a reasonable cause of action,