DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD v 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN

ba-22ncvc-305-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 17 April 2025 • BA-22NCvC-305-07/2023

Catchwords

This is a claim arising from a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3.3.2010 (the SPA) entered into between the Plaintiff, DPI Technology Sdn. Bhd., and the Defendants, Ho Foo and Seng Swee Yin, in respect of a leasehold vacant land measuring 2,380 square metres, held under State Lease No. 65618, Lot 50135, Section 15, situated at Ampang Town, Ulu Langat District, Selangor. Defendants had breached both the consent judgment and the SPA, therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to terminate the SPA and the deposit to be refunded and also eligible for the rental payments suffered as consequesntial losses from the Defendants’ breach. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed.

Practice Areas

This is a claim arising from a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3.3.2010 (the SPA) entered into between the Plaintiff, DPI Technology Sdn. Bhd., and the Defendants, Ho Foo and Seng Swee Yin, in respect of a leasehold vacant land measuring 2,380 square metres, held under State Lease No. 65618, Lot 50135, Section 15, situated at Ampang Town, Ulu Langat District, Selangor. Defendants had breached both the consent judgment and the SPA, therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to terminate the SPA and the deposit to be refunded and also eligible for the rental payments suffered as consequesntial losses from the Defendants’ breach. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed.

Judges (1)

Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat Delivered

Parties (3)

DPI TECHNOLOGY Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Ho Foo Defendant Seng Swee Yin Defendant

Case Significance

DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD v 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated April 17, 2025 (citation: ba-22ncvc-305-07-2023). The case was decided by Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat.

What was the outcome of DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD v 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN?

DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD v 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN is a High Court decision dated April 17, 2025. The case was heard by Noor Hayati binti Haji Mat. See the full judgment for details.