Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ANTARA
T.S SAMBANTHAMURTHI
PERAYU
RESPONDEN
DAN
CORAM:
TENGKU DATO BAHARUDIN SHAH BIN TENGKU MAHMUD, JCA
LOW HOP BING, JCA
A. SAMAH NORDIN, JCA
I.
APPEAL
[1]
After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs claim
and allowed the 5th Defendants counterclaim, holding that there was
a breach of contract by the Plaintiff. The High Court also ordered that
damages be assessed by the learned registrar who after assessment
awarded damages in the sum of RM665,000 to the 5th Defendant,
with interest at 6% p.a from the date of assessment to the date of
realization.
[2]
Judge In Chambers.
[3]
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[4]
piece of land in Kulim, Kedah. The 1st and the 2nd Defendants are
advocates and solicitors, the 3rd defendant a limited company and the
4th Defendant a professional valuer.
[5]
The Plaintiff alleged that on the advice given by the 1st to 4th
[6]
was agreed by the parties that the Plaintiff was to obtain approval
from the authorities for conversion, subdivision and layout plan for the
land within five months from the date of signing the SPA.
The
balance of the purchase price would be paid once the Plaintiff had
obtained such approval.
[7]
then asked for the refund of the deposit paid earlier, but the Plaintiff
refused to do so. Thereupon, the parties entered into a Revocation
Agreement dated 1 December 1982 whereby it was agreed that the
SPA was revoked and the Plaintiff was to pay RM100,000.00 to the
5th Defendant upon signing the Revocation Agreement.
[8]
The parties also agreed that the Plaintiff was to sell the land to
the intended purchaser (Koperasi Belia Majujaya Bhd) and upon the
land being sold, the Plaintiff would refund the deposit sum and pay
RM400,000.00 to the 5th Defendant as the loss suffered by the 5th
Defendant due to the Plaintiffs breach of the SPA.
[9]
[12] After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs claim
and allowed the 5th Defendants counterclaim. The High Court further
ordered that damages be assessed by the registrar.
III.
DECISION
[16] There are two issues before us in this Appeal viz the award of
damages at RM665,000 and the rate of interest at 1%. These two
issues turn on the true construction of the Revocation Agreement.
[17] We are of the view that the learned Judge had correctly
affirmed the registrars decision:
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
IV.
CONCLUSION
[18] The Plaintiffs Appeal is dismissed.
We also make a
Mr L. H. Chua
Tetuan L. H. Chua
Peguambela & Peguamcara
Blok D, Lot D8, 2nd Floor
Fahrenheit 88 (K.L. Plaza)
Box 337
No. 179, Jalan Bukit Bintang
50100 KUALA LUMPUR