Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (suing in his own name and as the executor and trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors vs trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors v Sime Darby Property Bhd and other cases

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 6002

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
WONG KIAN KHEONG, J
Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (suing in his own name and as the executor and trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors – Appellant
Versus
trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors v Sime Darby Property Bhd and other cases – Respondent

Advocates:
Colin Andrew Pereira (with Gary Wong Kin Wai) (Goh Wong Pereira) for the plaintiffs.
Rohan Arasoo a/l Jeyabalah (with Amy Hiew Kar Yi and Pan Yan Teng) (Harold & Lam Partnership) for the defendant.

Wong Kian Kheong J:

JUDGMENT

(after trial)

A. Introduction

[1]This judgment arises from a joint trial (Trial) of the above six suits (6 Suits) filed by purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows built and sold (6 Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant), a housing developer.

[2]In these 6 Suits, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had breached various provisions of six Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows (6 SPAs) entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant [Alleged Defendant’s Breaches (6 SPAs)]. The Alleged Defendant’s Breaches (6 SPAs) concern novel legal issues regarding certain clauses in the 6 SPAs.

B. Background

[3]The 6 Suits are as follows:

(1)suit no. BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Suit No. 43) had been filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 43)] against the Defendant with regard to a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 43)] which was -

(a)built on land held Grant 174772, Lot 70087, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and

(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1.12.2010 [SPA (Suit No. 43)];

(2)suit no. BA-22C-44-10/2017 (Suit No. 44) was filed by the plaintiff company [Plaintiff (Suit No. 44)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document