VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A developer whose matters study late-delivery litigation at the interlocutory stage: the summary-judgment threshold where a delay period is effectively admitted, and the striking-out and amendment applications shaping such claims.

VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd, a developer, appears in the corpus in purchaser disputes over the late delivery of property and in connected pleadings applications, and its appearances turn on summary judgment and striking out in housing-development litigation. In a High Court matter a plaintiff sought summary judgment against the company under Order 14 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, including a claim for damages for the late delivery of a property; the court found that the company had not raised any triable issue, the amended defence indicating no dispute about a 265-day delay, so that despite the company's assertions about the sale-and-purchase agreement the claim was suitable for summary disposal. That outcome shows how an admitted period of delay can leave a developer without a triable defence to a late-delivery claim.

In connected matters the company was a defendant to purchaser claims and pursued its own pleadings applications. In one, framed partly in Bahasa Malaysia, the court dismissed the company's application under Order 18 rule 19 to strike out parts of a statement of claim, while the purchaser sought to amend its writ and statement of claim. In appeals against orders of a judge the company's notices of application under Order 18 rule 19 were dismissed with costs in the cause.

For a reader, the cluster is a practical study of developer-purchaser litigation at the interlocutory stage: the summary-judgment threshold where a period of delay is effectively admitted, and the striking-out and amendment applications through which such claims are shaped before trial. The company is named as it appears on the record; the individual purchasers are referred to by their procedural role only, while the judge who made the impugned orders is named as recorded. The developer's matters illustrate late-delivery litigation at the interlocutory stage, where an effectively admitted period of delay can leave a developer without a triable defence to a summary-judgment application, and where the striking-out and amendment powers under the Rules of Court 2012 are used to shape the purchasers' claims before trial. The recurring outcome is early disposal where no genuine issue survives.