Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

CONTRACT – ILLEGALITY – HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL & LICENSING) ACT 1966

In brief

  •  The Plaintiffs were purchasers of the Defendant’s residential housing project. The Plaintiffs’ Sale and Purchase Agreements (“SPAs”) with the Defendant are in the prescribed form of Schedule H, which was created in accordance with the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR”). The Plaintiffs served notice on the Defendant four months before the completion date, requesting that the SPAs be terminated for anticipatory breach of the SPA fundamental conditions. The Plaintiffs claim that at the time, the Defendant had not even completed half of the project’s construction. The Plaintiffs sought a refund of all monies contributed toward the purchase price, as well as compensation from the Defendant for any fees and expenses incurred as a result of the SPAs.

Q. Can you terminate the SPA if the developer failed to deliver vacant possession to the buyer?

A. Yes, the Court of Appeal determined that it is only fair and just to return the parties to their former positions as if the SPAs had never been implemented. This is because for example, the SPA specified in clauses 25 and 27 that the Defendant must deliver vacant possession of the units and complete common facilities within 48 months of the SPA date. Therefore, if the developer failed to deliver vacant possession to the buyer within the time frame, it amounted to a breach of contract.

Whether the SPAS are illegal and unenforceable?

  •  The illegality is based on non-compliance with the period of delivery of vacant possession and completion of common amenities provided in the SPAs, which in this case is 48 months.
  •  Moreover, clauses 25 and 29 of Schedule H state that the delivery of vacant possession and construction of common facilities must be completed within 36 months of the agreement’s date. However, in this case, it is clear from clauses 25 and 27 of the SPAs that the above-mentioned 36-month period has been extended to 48 months. Given that the goal of the Housing Developers legislation is to protect buyers from developers, parties cannot contract outside of the scheduled form.
  •  In the end, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court and concluded that the SPAs violated Schedule H of the HDR, rendering them unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Is it true that Regulation 11(3) of the Housing Development Regulations granted the controller of housing the authority to waive or alter any provision of the SPA?

  •  The Federal Court ruled in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and Other Appeals that the Housing Controller has no authority to change the stipulated Schedule H in the HDR. This is due to the fact that regulation 11(3) of the HDR, the basis on which the Housing Controller used its powers to issue a time extension, is in violation of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966.
  •  The Court of Appeal also rejected the attempt to distinguish the case of Ang Ming Lee. In this regard, the Court of Appeal took the hard and strict stance that the issue of whether the approval is acquired before or after the SPAs are executed is irrelevant, given that the judgement of Ang Ming Lee is unambiguous in that the Housing Controller has no ability to amend the specified Schedule H. This is despite the fact that the parties agreed to the longer duration when they signed the SPAs.

 

 

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN