It is not uncommon during times of price volatility that breaches of agreements occur, particularly during the pre-contract stage. Other common areas of dispute involving property developers include joint venture disputes, late delivery claims, misrepresentations, nuisance, trespass. Apart, dispute very often arises not necessarily because of bad faith, but simply because an eventuality not previously contemplated by the contracting parties having occurred, and circumstances changed.
Lim & Yeoh is well equipped to undertake all disputes resolution of this nature, before and at court.
Case Studies
Score Option Sdn Bhd v Mexaland Development Sdn Bhd [2012] 7 CLJ 802
Decision of the Federal Court on August 2012, Judgement obtained in April 2013.
This is a Landmark case where the Firm acted for a Property Developer to claim for damages & specific performance against a rogue landowner whom had summarily terminated the JV Agreement with the Developer, despite the Developer having expended Tens of Millions of Ringgit involving a part of some 200 acres of land at Puchong, held within a single master title.
Initial Interlocutory Injunctions taken against Landowners were unsuccessful, and the rogue landowner entered into other joint ventures with another party. This party even managed to carry out initial sales launch but thereafter the same was abandoned. A private caveat was lodged against the Master title pending full trial, but the High Court refused to extend the same. At around the same time, the Landowner had also entered into litigation with another developer over an adjacent parcel of land within the same master title, claiming for the exercise of an option to buy over the land. Thereon, it was also discovered that there were also several previous purchasers whom had purchased parts of the land as industrial plots.
Amidst the numerous suits, the Landowner himself defaulted on their loans, and Receivers and Managers, acting for the bridging financier bank, tookover management control of the Landowner company. The R&M opened the land for sale by tender to the public at large. Non of the stakeholders were willing to compromise. The Firm’s Property Developer client ranked as an unsecured creditor, was rendered hapless and was facing a total loss, against the priority of legal charge and debenture of the Bridging Financier bank, which itself was out of money.
Amidst the overwhelming odds against the Property Developer client, and unfavourable legal precedent, through unwavering grit, the Firm was able to grasp the complexities, and digest vast amount of facts, and succesfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, reversing the High Court’s decision, and managed to reinstate the private caveat unto the Master Title.
With the timely Court of Appeal’s re-instatement of the private caveat, the R&M as well as the only bidder for the land, agreed to compromise and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Even though the Federal Court had later heard the case and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal again, the client had already attained its objectives of recovering its initial investments.
The 5-year saga spawned 3 reported cases in the law reports, and established the legal principles for the caveatability of a property developer’s interest in Malaysia.
Citations :
[2008] 8 CLJ 727 – High Court
[2011] 2 CLJ 709 – Court of Appeal
[2012] 7 CLJ 802 – Federal Court