Liew Fen Fee 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co

Liew Fen Fee 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co

The RM5,000 payment was a stakeholder sum held by the developer's solicitors and not a booking fee; therefore LAD is calculated from the SPA signing date (01.07.2016). The Housing Controller validly granted extensions of time which were not properly challengeable in these proceedings; vacant possession was delivered within the approved extension. The 2nd Respondent cannot be ordered to release stakeholder funds because release would violate clause 30 of the SPA and s22E HDA and would expose solicitors to fiduciary, professional and criminal liability. Accordingly the Appellant's claims for LAD and release of stakeholder sum fail and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Liew Fen Fee; 1st Respondent / Developer: Talent Team Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Respondent / Stakeholder Solicitors: Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Decision Under Order 55 Rules of Court 2012 / High Court Rehearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages, Vacant Possession, Stakeholder Funds, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Sale and Purchase Agreement, Release of Stakeholder Sum
Source Language
Malay/English
Housing Development Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Trusts and Fiduciary Law Liquidated Damages Vacant Possession Stakeholder Funds +4 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liew Fen Fee

Appellant / Plaintiff

Talent Team Sdn. Bhd.

1st Respondent / Developer

Tetuan Soh Hayati & Co

2nd Respondent / Stakeholder Solicitors

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Decision Under Order 55 Rules of Court 2012 / High Court Rehearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper date for computation of liquidated ascertained damages (booking fee payment date versus SPA signing date)
  2. 2 Whether RM5,000 constituted a booking fee or a stakeholder sum held in trust
  3. 3 Validity and challengeability of Housing Controller's extensions of time and correct procedural mode to challenge (judicial review)

Ratio Decidendi

The RM5,000 payment was a stakeholder sum held by the developer's solicitors and not a booking fee; therefore LAD is calculated from the SPA signing date (01.07.2016). The Housing Controller validly granted extensions of time which were not properly challengeable in these proceedings; vacant possession was delivered within the approved extension. The 2nd Respondent cannot be ordered to release stakeholder funds because release would violate clause 30 of the SPA and s22E HDA and would expose solicitors to fiduciary, professional and criminal liability. Accordingly the Appellant's claims for LAD and release of stakeholder sum fail and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs