Chen Boon Feng & 26 Others v PLATINUM EMINENT SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the use of Order 14 summary judgment for liquidated ascertained damages where the computation of the 42-month delivery period under Schedule A is settled by binding Court of Appeal authority (stare decisis), together with the striking out under Order 18 rule 19 of a developer's counterclaim that discloses no reasonable cause of action.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judge Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat, concerns purchasers' claims for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) for late delivery of vacant possession, the computation of the delivery period, and the striking out of the developer's counterclaim. The plaintiffs, a group of purchasers, sued the developer, Platinum Eminent Sdn Bhd, for LAD, the dispute turning on the interpretation of Clause 35A and section 10 of Schedule A of the statutory sale and purchase agreement, and specifically on when the 42-month period for delivery of vacant possession begins to run for the purpose of computing the LAD. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment on the LAD, and separately to strike out the developer's counterclaim.

The court decided both applications in the plaintiffs' favour. On the LAD, it observed that the correct computation of the 42-month period had already been settled by the Court of Appeal in similar cases, so that, applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court was bound to follow that settled construction rather than reopen the interpretation of the contractual and statutory provisions. On that basis the entitlement to LAD was not in genuine dispute and did not require a full trial, and the court recorded summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the amount of LAD payable by the developer to the remaining plaintiffs. It further held that the developer's counterclaim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was fit to be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. It accordingly allowed both applications with costs of RM5,000 each, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates the use of summary judgment for LAD where the computation of the delivery period is settled by binding appellate authority, and the striking out of a developer's counterclaim that discloses no reasonable cause of action.