Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6081
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GEK SOK LAN @ GOAY SOOK LAN – Appellant
Versus
VENUS ASSETS SDN BHD (ENCLS 74 & 76) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-555-08/2021]
The court reaffirmed that claims based on a Sale and Purchase Agreement must be filed within six years from the date of execution, emphasizing adherence to limitation statutes as fundamental principles of law.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Limitation Act 1953 - Sale and Purchase Agreement execution - Plaintiff sought damages for late property delivery - Claim dismissed as time-barred, court affirming purchaser's responsibility to initiate action within six years from contract execution date. (Paras 39-40)
(B) Striking Out Pleadings - Court ruled pleads can only be struck if obviously unsustainable - Plaintiff's application to amend claim dismissed due to significant delay and prejudicial change of character - Exemption from regulatory schedule was properly acknowledged by plaintiff, negating claims of fraudulent concealment. (Paras 22-28, 45-66)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff agreed to purchase property from the defendant under terms that stipulated a 54-month delivery timeline, which was exceeded, leading to a claim filed six years later. Court noted the exemption obtained by the defendant exempting adherence to the standard form.
Findings of Court:
Claim barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the date of Sale and Purchase Agreement signing in 2013. No valid grounds for the plaintiff’s amendments or claims were established.
Issues: Whether plaintiff's claim was time-barred, validity of exemption from regulatory adherence, and the legitimacy of proposed amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that limitation periods must be strictly adhered to, and amendments seeking to introduce new issues after delay are viewed critically unless justified.
Result: Applications allowed in part: Enclosure 74 allowed, Enclosure 76 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. two applications before the court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of damages for late delivery. (Para 3 , 10 , 14 , 16 , 20) |
| 3. procedural history and developments. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 4. limitation of actions as a bar. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 39 , 44) |
| 5. defendant's argument against plaintiff's claims. (Para 27 , 28 , 32) |
| 6. plaintiff's amendment application discussed. (Para 45 , 46 , 48 , 51) |
| 7. concerns about tactical maneuvers in amendments. (Para 56 , 58 , 60) |
Preliminary
[1] There are two (2) applications before me. They are as follows:
(a) The first is encl 74, in which the defendant moves this court pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of court 2012 ("RC 2012") to strike out paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and relief no 1 of the Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021; and
(b) Secondly, there is encl 76, which is the plaintiff's application to amend its Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021.
[2] The two applications are heard together.
[3] Meanwhile, in the main claim, the plaintiff seeks damages for the late delivery of a property purchased from the defendant. In this regard, the plaintiff is claiming the following relief:
(a) Damages for late delivery amounting to RM1,188,451.72 in the event this court deems that the vacant possession of the property should be given 36 months from the date of the Sales and Purchase Agreement, that is on or before 22 July 2016;
(b) In the alternative, the plaintiffs claim is for damages for late delivery amounting to RM374,910.58 calculated from the vacant possession period of 54 month in accordance with the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement;
(c) Loss of rental amounting to RM85,000.00 for the period from March 2019 till July 2019;
(d) Interest on all the above; and
(e) A declaration that the exemption obtained by the defendant in respect of the Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations for the private residences is void.
[4] The plaintiff filed this action on 14 August 2021. Nevertheless, on 9 September 2022, this court stayed the action for the purpose of awaiting the disposal of a Judicial Review Application No WA-25- 401-12/2020 ("Judicial Review Application"). It was the defendant who filed the stay application in this court.
[5] In the Judicial Review Application, two purchasers sought for a declaration that the decision of the Minister of Housing and Local Government was void, illegal and contrary to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, as well as a declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement executed was illegal and contrary to these provisions.
[6] This case has been set for trial from 28 July 2025 to 31 July 2025. I gave the trial dates much earlier during a Case Management Session on 23 February 2023 in order to ensure that all positions of law had been resolved by then.
[7] As a result of a Case Management Session with the parties on 13 March 2023, I learnt that the Special Powers Division of the High court had dismissed the Judicial Review application. There was also a request by the parties to defer the trial of this case in anticipation of the outcome of the Federal court case of Obata- Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals.
[8] During a Case Management Session on 23 August 2024, I was informed by the parties that the Federal court had handed down its decision on 26 July 2024. This case has now been reported as Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals ; [2024] 5 MLJ 897 ; [2024] 8 CLJ 519 ; [2024] 6 AMR 813 .
[9] Then, suddenly, came encl 74 on 11 November 2024 and encl 76 on 18 November 2024.
An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case
[10] The plaintiff and the developer, namely the defendant, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 22 July 2013, whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase a private residential unit ("
