(i) Deposits of RM12,672,016.00 which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants be returned by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days from the judgment date;

(ii) Interest of 5% per annum on the said amount from 18 April 2016 until realization;

(iii) Compensation to the plaintiffs pursuant to s 18 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar and the defendants are entitled to set off from such compensation all costs and expenses incurred for changing a 7½ storey building to a 15 storey building; and

(iv) Costs of RM5,000.00 subject to allocator.

[20] The defendants appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge. After hearing submissions from both parties and the written submissions, unanimously we find merits in the appeals by the defendants. We allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the learned High Court Judge. Herein below are our reasons for our decision.

B. Issues

[21] The learned High Court Judge had tabulated several issues which were to be determined, most of which are overlapping. Essentially the main issues are as follows:

(i) Whether the SPAs 2007 and the Supplemental Agreement both dated 9 November 2007 are still va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document