JCW

[Claim based on breach of a Master Tenancy Agreement, disputes on Vacant Possession and the Court can lift “privilege” under without prejudice correspondence when the justice of the case require it] Justin and Chooi Peng were the counsel for the Plaintiff. The plaintiff succeeded in the case after Trial based on amongst other the breach of a Master Tenancy Agreement entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of a Building. The plaintiff claimed that the 1st defendant failed to give vacant possession for the entire Property. The 1st defendant claimed on the other hand that the plaintiff failed to pay rental and took vacant possession. Whilst the Master Tenancy Agreement was subsisting, the 2nd defendant entered into another tenancy agreement with the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant sub-let the same to the 4th Defendant. The 1st defendant was found to have failed to give vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff refused to take possession is a not true. The 1st defendant knew it had to give Vacant Possession of the entire premises of 1,234,197 square feet before it can collect rental from the Plaintiff. The Court further found that the without prejudice letters were admissible in the circumstances of the case where inter alia justice required it. [Note: This case was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal in [2016] 3 CLJ 676]