Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami