Kontrak Kecewa (Frustrated Contract) Bukanlah Suatu Pembelaan Bagi Pihak Yang Menyebabkannya (Self-Induced Frustration).

B.I.G. Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd lwn Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd 

[Rayuan Sivil No. Q-02(W)-809-04/2016]

Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes B.I.G. Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd lwn Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd [Rayuan Sivil No. Q-02(W)-809-04/2016] melalui penghakiman bertarikh 23.1.2018 telah mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak pembelaan Defendan bahawa kontrak jualan hartanah telah menjadi kecewa (frustrated) apabila kebenaran untuk pindahmilik hartanah tersebut ditolak oleh Pihak Berkuasa atas alasan 'tidak dapat dipertimbangkan'. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Kontrak Kecewa yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan sebagai pembelaan adalah disebabkan oleh Defendan sendiri atau 'self-induced frustration'. Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju dengan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik sekiranya dibenarkan akan melanggar peruntukan undang-undang dan justeru itu diputuskan bahawa gantirugi adalah remedi yang mencukupi. Walaubagaimanapun, berhubung Kaveat Persendirian yang dimasukkan oleh Plaintif, Mahkamah Rayuan  memutuskan bahawa Plaintif tiada lagi kepentingan untuk dipelihara kerana kepentingan tersebut adalah berbentuk kewangan setelah Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan untuk Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik dan mengarahkan gantirugi untuk ditaksirkan.

Dalam kes tersebut Plaintif telah memasuki satu Perjanjian Jual Beli [SPA] hartanah dengan Defendan yang merupakan pemilik hartanah tersebut di mana SPA mensyaratkan bahawa baki harga jual beli hendaklah dibayar dalam tempoh 3 bulan sebaik sahaja kebenaran pindahmilik secara bertulis diperolehi dari Director of Lands and Surveys Sarawak. Walaubagaimanapun, setelah permohonan dibuat untuk kebenaran tersebut, ianya telah ditolak dengan alasan 'adalah tidak dapat dipertimbangkan'. Defendan kemudian telah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa SPA tersebut tidak dapat disempurnakan dan menawarkan untuk memulangkan wang pendahuluan yang dibayar. Plaintif walaubagaimanpun tidak bersetuju dengan tindakan Defendan yang menolak perlaksanaan kontrak tersebut dan meminta Defendan merayu kepada Director of Lands and Surveys Sarawak atas penolakan permohonan kebenaran tersebut tetapi telah ditolak oleh Defendan. 

Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendengar tuntutan Plaintif memutuskan bahawa Defendan gagal membuktikan bahawa kontrak jualan tanah menjadi mustahil untuk dilaksanakan dan berpendapat bahawa penolakan permohonan Defendan untuk kebenaran tersebut tidak menjadikan perlaksanaan SPA mustahil kerana Defendan masih boleh merayu atau membuat permohonan yang sempurna tanpa sebarang kesilapan tetapi Defendan telah memilih untuk tidak melakukannya. Hakim bicara menyatakan, " From the evidence adduced, this Court finds that the initial appeal by the Defendant for the requisite consent was flawed in that the material particulars of the said Land was wrong and that the application was sent to the wrong party. The Defendant ought to have either resubmit another application containing the correct particulars of the said Land and to the proper person or lodged and appeal after rectifying the defects in the initial application. The Defendant decided or omitted to do either. Instead the Defendant then proceeded to repudiate the SPA relying on frustration. This showed that the Defendant had no intention to complete the SPA. Furthermore there was evidence adduced to show that chances of an appeal succeeding is high."  Dapatan ini dipersetujui oleh Mahkamah Rayuan.

Hakim Mohd Zawawi Salleh yang bersidang bersama Hakim-Hakim Ahamadi Hj Asnawi dan Kamardin Hashim dalam menyampaikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan, " We are persuaded, on the reasons proffered by the learned High Court Judge, that the defendant's refusal to re-submit or appeal to the Director for the requisite consent is self-induced frustration....It is clear therefore, that the doctrine of frustration applies only in circumstances where the supervening event is beyond the control of the parties to the contract. It follows that where the alleged frustrating event is caused by the deliberate act or decision of one of the parties, or by his negligence, the doctrine will not apply." Mahkamah Rayuan merujuk kepada buku Sinnadurai on the Contract Act, A Commentary [2015] di mana penulis menyatakan, " As a general rule, a party cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration as a defence for non-performance of a contract, if he himself had been responsible for bringing about the frustrating event; that is the event which a party relies upon as frustrating his contract must not be self-induced." Rujukan juga dibuat kepada kes Hong Leong Bank Bhd lwn Tan Siew Nam [2014] yang menyatakan, "...the party who seeks to rely on frustration must be a party who is not at fault and no blame can be imputed to him as it is trite law that a self-induced frustration does not discharge a party of his contractual obligations."

Berhubung keputusan Hakim bicara yang enggan memberikan Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik, Hakim Zawawi menyatakan, " We are in full agreement with the learned High Court Judge's refusal to grant relief which require express consent which had not been obtained, and should the relief be granted, the performance of which relief would contravene an express provision of the law. We agree that the Court, in the circumstances of the case, should not grant an order of specific performance of the SPA against the defendant. We are mindful that there is a long line of  common law authority that specific performance is the default and appropriate remedy for a contract for the sale and purchase of land...We take the stand that it cannot be assumed that damages for breach of contract for the purchase and sale of immovable property will be an inadequate remedy in all cases. In Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] A.C. 514 at 519, the Privy Council observed that, in some circumstances, no distinction could be drawn between land sale contracts and other commercial contracts because 'land can also be an article of commerce and a flat in Hong Kong is probably as goal an example as one could find'. This observation clearly implies that damages could be an adequate remedy in contracts involving land....In this instant appeal, there is no evidence on record to show that the said land is unique in the sense that there is no readily available substitute. The said land has not been uniquely identified by the parties in the SPA or in the trial. We conclude, therefore, that in the circumstances of this instant appeal, damages will be an adequate remedy in the absence of the evidence ti show 'uniqueness' of the said land".

Berhubung keputusan Hakim bicara yang mengekalkan Kaveat Persendirian yang dimasuki Plaintif atas alasan Defendan telah bersetuju melalui Klausa 8 SPA untuk membenarkan Plaintif memasuki Kaveat tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan tidak bersetuju dan menyatakan, " In our view, since the learned High Court Judge had rejected the application for specific performance in respect of the said land and order the damages to be assessed by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar, the plaintiff's only interest is monetary and the plaintiff no longer had any interest to preserve the caveat. Insofar as the balance of convenience is concerned, it is well established that a critical consideration is the financial status of parties. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the defendant's finances are shaky. We see no reason to believe, and the plaintiff had not suggested, that the defendant would not be financially unable to pay damages should the plaintiff prevails at the assessment of damages proceedings......we find that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of removing the caveat."