Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW– DEVELOPERS – LATE DELIVERY OF HOUSES – HOUSE BUYERS – LIQUIDATED ASCERTAINED DAMAGES – LATE DELIVERY OF HOUSES

I went to a showroom and I’ve decided to purchase a house. They asked me to fill up a form and pay an amount of RM10,000. Is the collection legal?

No.

  • Regulation 11(2) Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1989 (‘HDA 1989’): “Everyone, not just developers, is prohibited from collecting booking fees”.
  • The scope of prohibition is wide enough to include lawyers, estate agents and any third parties purportedly acting as stakeholders for the housing developer in respect of collection of the booking fees.
  • The first 10% of the purchase price is only payable immediately upon signing of sale and purchase agreement (‘SPA’).
  • When it comes to interpreting social legislation, the courts must give effect to the intention of Parliament and not the intention of parties.

What to do when a developer fails to deliver the property in accordance with the timeline provided in the SPA?

  • The vacant possession of the house must be delivered to the house buyer in accordance with the timeline provided in the SPA.
  • Developers are required to deliver the vacant possession of a landed home with an individual title within 24 months from the SPA date whereas for strata-titled properties such as condominiums, serviced apartments has to be delivered within 36 months.
  • Pursuant to Clause 24(1) of Schedule G of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (‘HDA 1966’), developer ought to pay liquidated ascertained damages (‘LAD’), which is late delivery payment to the house buyer for the period of delay.

How is LAD calculated?

  • Many people might think that the calculation for LAD to house buyers begins when the SPA is signed.
  • In recent case of Tribunal PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah @ Ng Chee Kuan, the Federal Court has decided that the LAD should be calculated from the date the booking fee is collected, not the date the SPA is signed.

Whether house developers can be exempted from paying LAD during MCO?

  • Section 35 of the Covid-19 Act 2020 provides that house buyers cannot claim from developers the LAD incurred during the period of 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020.
  • Under section 35(2), the developer is allowed to seek for an extension up to 31.12.2020.

late delivery

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