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

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami