GLENN WILLIAM ONEILL v CHANG AI NEE

Case Significance

Shows a court declining to convert an originating summons into a writ under Order 28 rule 8 and then granting declaratory relief validating the termination of a sale and purchase agreement, while refusing general damages that were not proven.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur arises from an originating summons by which the plaintiff sought a declaration validating the termination of a sale and purchase agreement dated 28 September 2021, and a related supplementary agreement dated 14 October 2022, over a Mont Kiara property, together with ancillary relief flowing from that termination. The plaintiff, a beneficial owner who had been authorised to sell following a Singapore family court order, had given the defendant purchaser possession of the property pending completion, at a monthly rental, with a right to carry out renovations. The purchaser arranged bank financing but a substantial balance of the purchase price remained outstanding, which the supplementary agreement addressed. The judgment records two decisions. The first is an interlocutory ruling on the defendant's application to convert the originating summons into a writ action under Order 28 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, which permits a court to order proceedings begun by originating summons to continue as if begun by writ where there is reason to do so. The Court dismissed that application, declining to convert the matter, and ordered costs of RM3,000.00. The second is the disposal of the substantive originating summons itself. Having considered the terms of the sale and purchase agreement and supplementary agreement — including the provisions governing completion, refund of ad valorem stamp duty and the exclusion from the completion period of delays caused by the stamp office or land registry — the Court allowed the plaintiff's originating summons and granted all the reliefs claimed except the claim for general damages, which it declined because such damages had not been proven, awarding costs of RM10,000.00. The decision illustrates when a court will keep a dispute within the originating summons procedure and grant declaratory relief on documentary evidence. In refusing to convert the proceedings, the Court was satisfied that the issues could be determined on the affidavit and documentary evidence before it without the fuller machinery of a writ action and pleadings.