GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

I had, on 23rd June 2008, dismissed both Enclosures 27 and 24 ie, the plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the senior assistant registrar in allowing the 2nd defendant's striking out application in Enclosure 21 and the 1st defendant's appeal against the decision of the senior assistant registrar's in allowing the plaintiff's summary judgment application in Enclosure 9.

The plaintiff's summary judgment application in Enclosure 9 against the 1st and 2nd defendant is for liquidated ascertained damages for late delivery of vacant possession of a condominium unit amounting to RM334,691.64, interest at the rate of 10% per annum on RM334,691.64 from 10.9.2007 until full settlement and costs.

The 2nd defendant is applying through Enclosure 21 under Order 18 rule 19 RHC 1980 to strike out the plaintiff's claim.

Summary of facts

On 7.9.1995, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the sale and purchase agreement) for the sale and purchase of a unit at Sri Emas Condominium (the condominium unit) for the purchase price of RM314,010.00 (the purchase price). Time was of the essence of the contract as stipulated in Cla