Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION – VALIDITY OF THE EXTENSION OF TIME – LAD

A, a purchaser has entered into a sales and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with B, a developer. Due to the fact that developer B could not deliver vacant possession on time, developer B had obtained an extension of time from the Housing Controller (“the Controller”). As a result, the house was clearly not delivered on the stipulated date and A wanted to claim for liquidated ascertained damages (“LAD”) over delayed completion of the property purchased. He also sought to challenge the validity of the extension of time granted by the Controller.

Q: When does the LAD start?

A: The Federal Court decision in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd says the date for the calculation of the LAD starts from the date booking fee was paid. Not from the date of the SPA was signed. However in Toh Ai Shi the court distinguished PJD Regency Sdn Bhd. The court note that there was no booking fee paid but only payment of “stakeholder sum” to the lawyer. So, LAD starts from the date the SPA was signed.

Q: Can A challenge the extension of time granted by the Controller?

A: Yes. In Toh Ai Shi the court observed that A should challenge the Controller’s extension of time by way of judicial review. This is because according to Ang Ming Lee and Alvin Leong (See our earlier legal updates), the Controller does not have power to extend time for delivery of vacant possession.

Q: Can developer B rely on Regulation 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR 1989”) to argue that the extension is valid?

A: No, Ang Ming Lee and Alvin Leong held that Regulation 11(3) HDR 1989 allows Minister to give extension of time. However, Controller does not have such power.

Q: What can A do if A wants to challenge the validity of the extension of time?

A: A shall file by way of judicial review application to the High Court to nullify the extension of time by the Controller first. Then can A claim LAD against developer B. In the latest decision of the High Court in Toh Ai Shi, the Plaintiff’s action was dismissed because he filed an Originating Summons against the developer and did not name the Controller as a party. However, it must be kept in mind, judicial review application has to be made within 90 days from the date the decision is made.

Cases in point:

  1. PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] MLRAU 8
  2. Toh Ai Shi v Talent Team Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 7 MLJ 262
  3. Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Others Appeals [2019] 6 MLRA 494
  4. Alvin Leong Wai Kuan v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar [2020] 6 MLJ 191
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