SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 5679

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
TAN LIAN HOR – Appellant
Versus
HONHUB SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-289-07/2019]



Petitioner Advocates:Olivia Chin,KB Ou Yong ,Respondent Advocate: RK Sharma,Lilly Chua,Chew Jia Ying

JUDGMENT

Faizah Jamaludin J:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant for breach of a joint venture agreement dated 28 October 2009 ("JVA") and breach of duty of care in respect of the construction of Premise 1 and Premise 2 (both defined below) on land held under Geran Mukim 6691, Lot 9120, Sek 2, Pekan Tanjung Karang, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Selangor ("Lot 9120").

[2] The plaintiff was the original landowner of Lot 9120, and the defendant is a developer licensed under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. The plaintiff and the defendant had entered the JVA for the development of a commercial center on Lot 9120 ("the Project"). The defendant is the developer of the Project.

[3] For purposes of the Project, Lot 9120 was subdivided into 13 individual lots in 2010. The plaintiff was the registered owner of all the 13 individual lots. The defendant completed the construction of 11 shophouses on 11 of the 13 individual lots. The certificates of completion and compliance ("CCC") for the shophouses were issued in 2014.

[4] Under the JVA, the plaintiff is entitled to 30% of the total units of the building constructed on Lot 9120 (defined as "the Landowner's Lots" in cl 4(a) of the JVA). The plaintiff took ownership of four units of the completed shophouses. The remaining seven shophouses were sold and transferred to third-party purchasers. The four units of shophouses taken by the plaintiff were:

(a) HSM 11905, PT 35, s 2, Mukim Tanjung Karang, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Negeri Selangor with the postal address at No 05, Jalan Padi Ria 2 Zon IKS Sungai Gulang-Gulang, 45500 Tanjung Karang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Premise 1");

(b) HSM 11906, PT 36, s 2, Mukim Tanjung Karang, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Negeri Selangor with the postal address at No 07, Jalan Padi Ria 2 Zon IKS Sungai Gulang-Gulang, 45500 Tanjung Karang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Premise 2");

(c) HSM 11900, PT 30, s 2, Mukim Tanjung Karang, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Negeri Selangor with the postal address at No 05, Jalan Padi Ria 1 Zon IKS Sungai Gulang-Gulang, 45500 Tanjung Karang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Premise 3");

(d) HSM 11901, PT 31, s 2, Mukim Tanjung Karang, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Negeri Selangor with the postal address at No. 07, Jalan Padi Ria 1 Zon IKS Sungai Gulang-Gulang, 45500 Tanjung Karang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Premise 4");

[5] The defendant had delivered vacant possession of all four Landowner's Lots to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took vacant possession of Premise 3 and Premise 4 in August 2014. As regards Premise 1 and Premise 2, the defendant claims that the plaintiff had taken vacant possession of both these premises, together with Premise 3 and Premise 4 in August 2014. Whereas the plaintiff contends that he took vacant possession of Premise 1 and Premise 2 in May 2015.

Plaintiff's Claim

[6] The plaintiff's action is based on two incidents that allegedly occurred in April 2017 to the common wall between Premise 1 and Premise 2 - approximately 2 years after he had taken vacant possession of the said premises. According to the plaintiff, on 27 April 2017 "the wall of Premise 1 broke with a loud noise" and on 30 April 2017 "the wall of Premise 1 broke again with a loud noise" ("the April 2017 incidents").

[7] The plaintiff contends that the defects in Premise 1 and Premise 2 resulted from substandard construction quality and settlement of the building foundation. He asserts that this constitutes a total failure of consideration by the defendant, thereby entitling him to rescind the transfer and seek damages from the defendant based on the current market value of Premise 1 and Premise 2.

Defendant's Defence And Counterclaim

[8] The defendant denies the plaintiff's claim. It maintains that it did not breach the JVA or its duty of care. It is the defendant's case that the issuance of the CCC and all the evidence and documents show that the buildings were constructed in good and workmanlike manner in accordance with the relevant laws and


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top