1. ) Rubhen Nair A/L Pradunman 2. ) Jesmeen Kaur A/ Ranjit Singh 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis

1. ) Rubhen Nair A/L Pradunman 2. ) Jesmeen Kaur A/ Ranjit Singh 1. ) Talent Team Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tetuan Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis

RM5,000 was paid as a stakeholder sum to solicitors and not a booking deposit; therefore LAD runs from date of the SPA (18.11.2015); the extensions of time granted by the Housing Controller are valid and, if to be impugned, must be challenged by judicial review in the High Court; a court in these proceedings must not order release of stakeholder funds contrary to clause 30(3) SPA and s22E HDA because that would require stakeholders to breach statutory, fiduciary and professional duties and constitute an abuse of process.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-93-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Purchaser: Rubhen Nair A/L Pradunman; Appellant / Purchaser: Jesmeen Kaur A/P Ranjit Singh; 1st Respondent (developer): Talent Team Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Respondent (solicitors / Stakeholder): Tetuan Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-93-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Decision / Rehearing in High Court Under Order 55 Rule 2 Rules of Court 2012; Grounds of Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of learned Sessions Court judge upheld
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages (lad), Completion and Vacant Possession, Stakeholder Sums, Extension of Time (eot) Under Housing Development Act, Mode of Challenge (judicial Review Vs Private Action), Section 22 E HDA (release of Stakeholder Moneys), Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Solicitors' Undertakings
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property / Strata / Real Estate Administrative Law Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Professional Regulation Civil Procedure Liquidated Damages (lad) Completion and Vacant Possession +5 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rubhen Nair A/L Pradunman

Appellant / Purchaser

Jesmeen Kaur A/P Ranjit Singh

Appellant / Purchaser

Talent Team Sdn. Bhd.

1st Respondent (developer)

Tetuan Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis

2nd Respondent (solicitors / Stakeholder)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Decision / Rehearing in High Court Under Order 55 Rule 2 Rules of Court 2012; Grounds of Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does calculation of LAD commence (booking fee payment vs date of SPA)?
  2. 2 Whether RM5,000 was a booking deposit or stakeholder sum held by solicitors
  3. 3 Whether extensions of time granted by Housing Controller are valid and challengeable in this proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

RM5,000 was paid as a stakeholder sum to solicitors and not a booking deposit; therefore LAD runs from date of the SPA (18.11.2015); the extensions of time granted by the Housing Controller are valid and, if to be impugned, must be challenged by judicial review in the High Court; a court in these proceedings must not order release of stakeholder funds contrary to clause 30(3) SPA and s22E HDA because that would require stakeholders to breach statutory, fiduciary and professional duties and constitute an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of learned Sessions Court judge upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents