V
VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd
Organisation 2 cases
About VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd
VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning April 2025 to April 2025. VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd appeared as defendant in 2 cases. Cases span the High Court (2).
How many court cases involve VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd?
VENUS ASSETS Sdn Bhd appears in 2 published judgments from April 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as defendant (2 cases).
Practice Areas
In a Notice of Application dated 11 May 2021 Enclosure 7, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendant under Order 14 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). One of the claims included damages for the late delivery of the property. The court found that the defendant had not raised any triable issues. This is because the Amended Defence indicated there was no dispute about the 265-day delay. Despite the defendant's assertion that the SPA neither prohibits nor bars the plaintiff from claiming damages against it, the defendant was willing to compensate the plaintiff on proof of loss. In light of this, the defendant's liability was justifiable. 1 There were two (2) applications heard together before the court. The first was Enclosure 74, in which the defendant moved the court pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC 2012”) to strike out paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and relief no. 1 of the Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. Secondly, there was Enclosure 76, which was the plaintiff's application to amend its Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. 1 As for Enclosure 74, the court found that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's cause of action arose from the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and not from the date of the purported discovery of fraudulent information as alleged by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action, which challenged the validity of the extension of time granted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as incorporated in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, accrued on 22 July 2013, the date on which the Sale and Purchase Agreement was executed. Thus, the plaintiff must bring her claim for breach of contract within 6 years, i.e. by 22 July 2019, and not by 14 August 2021. It was at this point that the plaintiff, as the purchaser, could initiate an action against the defendant. 1 For the amendment application in Enclosure 76, the court found that there existed an inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing this amendment application. In this regard, there has already been a disclosure of the relevant facts in Recital D of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, which should have prompted the plaintiff to plead accordingly from the very beginning. 1 In light of the above, Enclosure 74 was allowed while Enclosure 76 was dismissed, both with costs. 1