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

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们