ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain

02i-3-01-2025w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 6 July 2025 • 02(i)-3-01/2025(W) • 53 min read
27 cases cited (0 SG, 27 foreign)

Catchwords

Order 14 application - Summary judgment - Claim for liquidated damages - Late delivery of vacant possession - Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) - Commercial property (SOVO units) Conversion approval and building plan approval - Approvals to be obtained within 12 months from date of SPA Approval Period or six-month extension Extended Approval Period Time for delivery of vacant possession – 42 months completion period - Computation of time - Whether period to be calculated from date of the approval of the building plans (2.8.2012), or from the date of expiry of Extended Approval Period. Whether the period to be calculated from the date of last amended building plans approval (17.11.2015), or from the first approval of the building plans or in any event from the expiry of full 18-month Extended Approval Period. Interpretation of SPA - Commercial contract - Application of business common sense and commercially sensible approach - Time of the essence - Contra proferentem rule - Facts not in dispute - Pure question of law - Suitable for summary judgment – Qualifying phrase "where the context so admits" – Whether to apply purposive and contextual interpretation based on factual matrix - Harmonious and business common-sense construction. Whether there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the claim based on the principle in Miles v Bull [1968] 3 All ER 632. Whether appellant may raise fresh question of law not raised at leave stage - Whether new question of law may be raised in Federal Court appeal beyond leave questions - Appeal confined to questions for which leave granted - Exception in limited circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Practice Areas

Order 14 application Whether appellant may raise fresh question of law not raised at leave stage

Judges (3)

Hanipah binti Farikullah Coram Lee Swee Seng Delivered Rhodzariah binti Bujang Coram

Counsel (6)

Ching, Tan & Associates Firm Justin Voon Chooi & Wing Firm Chan Kim Weng Counsel Respondent Dato' Low Joo Hean Counsel Respondent Justin Voon Tiam Yu Counsel Appellant Lim Xin Yi Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Appellant Lee Kean Hwa Dan 61 Yang Lain Respondent

Case Significance

ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated July 6, 2025 (citation: 02i-3-01-2025w). <p>Icon City Development appealed against summary judgment ordering liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession of SOVO commercial units. The Federal Court examined the computation of the 42-month delivery period under the Sale and Purchase Agreement, specifically whether time runs from the first building plan approval or a later amended approval. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision upholding summary judgment was affirmed.</p> The panel comprised Hanipah binti Farikullah, Lee Swee Seng and Rhodzariah binti Bujang, with Lee Swee Seng delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Chan Kim Weng (counsel for respondent), Dato' Low Joo Hean (counsel for respondent), Justin Voon Tiam Yu (counsel for appellant), Lim Xin Yi (counsel for appellant).

Summary

Icon City Development appealed against summary judgment ordering liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession of SOVO commercial units. The Federal Court examined the computation of the 42-month delivery period under the Sale and Purchase Agreement, specifically whether time runs from the first building plan approval or a later amended approval. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision upholding summary judgment was affirmed.

What was the outcome of ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain?

<p>Icon City Development appealed against summary judgment ordering liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession of SOVO commercial units...

Statutes Cited

Courts of Judicature Act 1964
s 96
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (Cap 118)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (27)

UK (3)
[1968] 3 All ER 632 [1998] 1 WLR 896 [2011] 1 WLR 2900
MY (24)
[1972] 1 MLJ 168 [1980] 2 MLJ 31 [1981] 2 MLJ 1 [1981] MLJ 196 [1990] 3 MLJ 1 [1992] 1 MLJ 400 [1997] 4 CLJ 405 [1998] 3 MLJ 151 [1999] 1 MLJ 657 [1999] 2 CLJ 471 [1999] 2 MLJ 337 [2003] 3 CLJ 349 [2009] 2 MLJ 14 [2015] 4 MLJ 166 [2016] 1 MLJ 464 [2017] 6 MLJ 133 [2018] 1 CLJ 145 [2018] 4 CLJ 705 [2019] 3 CLJ 295 [2019] 3 MLJ 141 [2020] 3 MLJ 677 [2023] 4 MLJ 318 [2025] 2 CLJ 683 [2025] 5 CLJ 661