The Court of Appeal issued its grounds of judgment dated 20 August 2019 for GJH Avenue Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & 2 Others. The case has essentially decided that the Tribunal of Homebuyer Claims should have applied the plain language of the Schedule G format of sale and purchase agreements under the Housing Development laws. Delivery of vacant possession is to be calculated from the date of the agreement and not from the date of the payment of the booking fee.
The Court of Appeal in its grounds of judgment dated 26 July 2019 in Macvilla Sdn Bhd v Mervyn Peter Guan Yin Hui & Another has revived the question of whether there is a need to prove actual loss where there is a liquidated ascertained damages clause.
The earlier Federal Court decision in Cubic Electronics had concluded that for liquidated damages clause, proof of actual loss is not mandatory. The onus was on the defaulting party to show that the liquidated ascertained damages clause was unreasonable.
In Macvilla, the Court of Appeal now sets out the method of interpreting section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 in applying the liquidated ascertained damages clause. Continue reading
Malaysia’s apex court, the Federal Court, has decided on significant points of law relating to the right to forfeit deposits and the application of liquidated damages clauses. This is seen in the grounds of judgment of Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd.
These issues relate to the interpretation of section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950, whether there is a need to prove actual loss, and whether there has been an alignment of Malaysia law with the UK Supreme Court position in Cavendish.
This Federal Court decision significantly clarifies the previous position under Selva Kumar. Continue reading