JUDGMENT

Su Geok Yiam J:

Notice Of Appeal To Judge-Inchambers, encl (115)

[1] Enclosure (115) is a notice of appeal to the Judge-in-Chambers filed by the appellants/defendants ("the defendants") against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar ("DR") given on 25 January 2017 dismissing all the 3 (three) claims of the defendants in encl (85) with no order as to costs.

[2] Enclosure (85) is the defendants' notice of assessment of damages in lieu of specific performance and also general damages for wrongful termination against the respondent/plaintiff ("the plaintiff").

Decision Of The Court Dated 20 September 2017

[3] On 20 September 2017, I allowed encl (115) with costs.

[4] I set aside the decision of the learned DR dated 25 January 2017. I ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendants a sum of RM850,000.00 as damages in lieu of specific performance of the SPA together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment on 18 October 2016 until full settlement and costs.

[5] Ms Vanaya Nambiar, the learned counsel for the defendants, then prayed for a sum of RM15,000.00 as costs on the ground that she had put in a lot of work for the hearing of encl (115), viz the notice of assessment of damages, by the learned DR.

[6] Mr Navinder Singh, the learned counsel for the plaintiff proposed 1/2 of that amount, viz a sum of RM7,500.00, as costs.

[7] I ordered the plaintiff to pay a sum of RM15,000.00 as costs to the defendants as I was of the view that it was a reasonable amount of costs that the plaintiff ought to pay to the defendants for the amount of work, which was put in by Ms Vanaya Nambiar, the learned counsel for the defendants, for encl (85) and encl (115).

[8] I further ordered the Senior Assistant Registrar to issue the allocatur certificate in accordance with . I, finally, ordered that the allocatur fee must be paid before the fair copy of the Order made on that day could be filed in the Court.

[9] Mr Navinder Singh, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, then prayed orally for a stay of execution of my decision pending the filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[10] Upon the objection of Ms Vanaya Nambiar, the learned counsel for the defendants, I dismissed the oral application for stay as the plaintiff did not show any special circumstances to justify the granting of a stay of execution of my decision pending the filing of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Reasons For Decision Of The Court Dated 20 September 2017

[11] Below are the reasons why the Court decided in that manner.

Background Facts

[12] I shall first deal with the background facts, which led to the filing of encl (115) by the defendants. These background facts are as follows:

(1) On 17 November 2006, Choo Kok Yeow, the 1st defendant, and Michelle Kwok Mei Lin, the 2nd defendant, who are husband and wife, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the plaintiff to purchase the plaintiff's property for a purchase price of RM2,800,000.00 ("the SPA");

(2) The plaintiff's property is a detached house at No 43, Jalan Setiabakti, Bukit Damansara, 50490 Kuala Lumpur and held under H.S. (D) 46076, Lot 45254, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, in the District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory ("the subject property");

(3) The defendants had purchased the subject property on an 'as is where is basis' with full knowledge as to the state and condition of the subject property;

(4) In the sale and purchase of the subject property, the plaintiff was represented by solicitors, namely, Messrs Lim Yeoh & Partners ("the plaintiff's conveyancing solicitors") and the defendants were represented by solicitors, namely, Messrs Rahman Too & Co ("the defendants' solicitors");

(5) The defendants had full knowledge that the subject property was charged to Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad ("the plaintiff's financier");

(6) The defendants had purchased the property with the assistance of a RM2,000,000.00 loan from the Hong Leong Bank ("the defendants' financier");

(7) During the subsistence