Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

RESHAPING HOUSING LAW: THE IMPACT OF ANG MING LEE ON DEVELOPERS AND BUYERS

Introduction

The Federal Court’s 2020 decision in Ang Ming Lee marked a pivotal moment in Malaysian housing law by declaring Regulation 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR 1989”) ultra vires the parent Act. We have in our earlier article highlighted its application in this article. This ruling invalidated the Minister’s power to grant extensions of time (“EOT”) for developers, forcing them to face claims for Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”) for delays.

Immediate Impact of the Ang Ming Lee Decision

Initially, the Ang Ming Lee ruling created significant disruption in the housing industry. Developers who had relied on EOTs to delay the delivery of properties were suddenly exposed to claims for Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”) from purchasers for late delivery. The invalidation of these EOTs meant that developers could no longer escape liability for delays by relying on the extensions granted by the Controller of Housing.

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application

One of the key issues following the Ang Ming Lee decision was whether the ruling should apply retrospectively or prospectively. A retrospective application would mean that all EOTs granted under Regulation 11(3), even those granted before the Ang Ming Lee decision, would be considered invalid. This could potentially lead to an avalanche of claims against developers for LAD, significantly impacting the housing market.

Recognizing the potential chaos and injustice a retrospective application could cause, the Federal Court in Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd clarified that the Ang Ming Lee decision applies prospectively. This means that EOTs granted before the Ang Ming Lee decision are not retroactively invalidated. Developers and purchasers who had relied on these extensions based on the legal framework as it existed before Ang Ming Lee can rest assured that their contracts and extensions remain valid.

Court’s Role and Future Implications

Post-Ang Ming Lee, the courts have emphasized strict adherence to statutory contracts. Developers must comply with all legal requirements and timelines, as the courts are less likely to overlook failures. While the prospective application of Ang Ming Lee maintains market stability, it also reinforces the need for accountability within the industry.

Conclusion

Ang Ming Lee has reshaped the legal landscape for developers and purchasers, emphasizing the importance of statutory protections and the need for compliance. The decision, while applied prospectively, serves as a reminder of the critical role of the courts in upholding these protections and ensuring fair play in the housing market.

Reference Cases

  • Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281; [2020] 1 CLJ 162, FC (refd)
  • CIMB Bank Bhd (formerly known as Bumiputera Commerce Bank Bhd) v Sebang Gemilang Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 689
  • Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd Federal Court Civil Appeal no. 02(i)-70-08/2022 (W)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us