1. ) CHONG NGIT SOOI 2. ) HO PEAK HWA 3. ) YEE CHUNG TUCK 4. ) YEE YING YING 5. ) TAY JEAN SEAN 6. ) TAY CHOON HOW 7. ) PANG JIAN YONG 8. ) PANG TSE FUI 9. ) TAN HOON THEAN 10. ) TAN NING PEI 11. ) SOW TIAP 12. ) TAN NING XIN KAISAR MAXIM S

1. ) CHONG NGIT SOOI 2. ) HO PEAK HWA 3. ) YEE CHUNG TUCK 4. ) YEE YING YING 5. ) TAY JEAN SEAN 6. ) TAY CHOON HOW 7. ) PANG JIAN YONG 8. ) PANG TSE FUI 9. ) TAN HOON THEAN 10. ) TAN NING PEI 11. ) SOW TIAP 12. ) TAN NING XIN KAISAR MAXIM S

The extension of time dated 2 August 2017 was invalid because it was granted after Regulation 11(3) of the HDR had been declared ultra vires on 15 June 2017 and therefore there was no lawful enabling authority to extend the Schedule H 36‑month completion period; accordingly the developer remained bound by the 36‑month period, the Plaintiffs’ LAD claim was legally sustainable, the Sessions Court erred in allowing the Defendant’s Order 14A application, and summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered for the Plaintiffs.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-39-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: CHONG NGIT SOOI; Appellant/plaintiff: HO PEAK HWA; Appellant/plaintiff: YEE CHUNG TUCK; Appellant/plaintiff: YEE YING YING; Appellant/plaintiff: TAY JEAN SEAN; Appellant/plaintiff: TAY CHOON HOW; Appellant/plaintiff: PANG JIAN YONG; Appellant/plaintiff: PANG TSE FUI; Appellant/plaintiff: TAN HOON THEAN; Appellant/plaintiff: TAN NING PEI; Appellant/plaintiff: SOW TIAP; Appellant/plaintiff: TAN NING XIN; Respondent/defendant: KAISAR MAXIM SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 December 2025
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-39-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (disposal of Order 14 a and Order 14 Applications)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sessions Court order allowing Defendant's Order 14A prayers (1) and (2) set aside. Defendant's Order 14A application dismissed. Plaintiffs' Order 14 application allowed and summary judgment entered for Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Extension of Time (eot), Validity of Administrative Acts, Collateral Challenge and Second Actor Doctrine, Order 14 a Summary Dismissal, Schedule H Housing Development (control and Licensing) Regulations 1989
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Administrative Law Housing Law Civil Procedure Liquidated Ascertained Damages Extension of Time (eot) Validity of Administrative Acts Collateral Challenge and Second Actor Doctrine +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHONG NGIT SOOI

Appellant/plaintiff

HO PEAK HWA

Appellant/plaintiff

YEE CHUNG TUCK

Appellant/plaintiff

YEE YING YING

Appellant/plaintiff

TAY JEAN SEAN

Appellant/plaintiff

TAY CHOON HOW

Appellant/plaintiff

PANG JIAN YONG

Appellant/plaintiff

PANG TSE FUI

Appellant/plaintiff

TAN HOON THEAN

Appellant/plaintiff

TAN NING PEI

Appellant/plaintiff

SOW TIAP

Appellant/plaintiff

TAN NING XIN

Appellant/plaintiff

KAISAR MAXIM SDN BHD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (disposal of Order 14 a and Order 14 Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of time dated 2 August 2017 was valid authority to vary the Schedule H 36‑month completion period
  2. 2 Whether purchasers may mount a collateral challenge to an EOT in a private law action for LAD
  3. 3 Whether Obata‑Ambak governs and precludes the Plaintiffs’ claim

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time dated 2 August 2017 was invalid because it was granted after Regulation 11(3) of the HDR had been declared ultra vires on 15 June 2017 and therefore there was no lawful enabling authority to extend the Schedule H 36‑month completion period; accordingly the developer remained bound by the 36‑month period, the Plaintiffs’ LAD claim was legally sustainable, the Sessions Court erred in allowing the Defendant’s Order 14A application, and summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered for the Plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sessions Court order allowing Defendant's Order 14A prayers (1) and (2) set aside. Defendant's Order 14A application dismissed. Plaintiffs' Order 14 application allowed and summary judgment entered for Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 12 June 2025 allowing prayers (1) and (2) of the Defendant's Order 14A set aside
  • Defendant's Order 14A application dismissed