LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) WONG BOON LENG

LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) WONG BOON LENG

Appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed. The hazardous indoor installation of outdoor AC condensers amounted to a defect within the SPA Defects Liability Period (clause 29(1)); therefore limitation under s16N(2) HDA accrued under proviso (b) and the TTPR claims were timely. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction because the SPA, approved plans and vendor's admission established the CACS promise and the vendor's unilateral deviation breached the SPA.

Citation
B-01(A)-527-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (vendor): Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd; First Respondent (tribunal): Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah; Respondent (purchaser): Wong Boon Leng; Respondent (purchaser): Soh Li Hui; Respondent (purchaser): Tay Wei Long; Respondent (purchaser): Chang Mon Fong; Respondent (purchaser): Low Chuan Jyi; Respondent (purchaser): Soo Mee Ling
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 October 2023
Case Number
B-01(A)-527-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment (appeal Heard Together; Grounds of Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
All four appeals dismissed; High Court judgments affirmed.
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement (spa), Defects Liability Period (dlp), Tribunal Jurisdiction Under S16 N HDA, Limitation Period, Judicial Review / Certiorari, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Housing Law Administrative Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Sale and Purchase Agreement (spa) Defects Liability Period (dlp) Tribunal Jurisdiction Under S16 N HDA Limitation Period +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd

Appellant (vendor)

Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah

First Respondent (tribunal)

Wong Boon Leng

Respondent (purchaser)

Soh Li Hui

Respondent (purchaser)

Tay Wei Long

Respondent (purchaser)

Chang Mon Fong

Respondent (purchaser)

Low Chuan Jyi

Respondent (purchaser)

Soo Mee Ling

Respondent (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment (appeal Heard Together; Grounds of Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether TTPR claims were time barred under s16N(2) HDA
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under s16N(2) HDA
  3. 3 Whether hazardous indoor installation of outdoor AC condensers constituted a defect within the SPA DLP

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed. The hazardous indoor installation of outdoor AC condensers amounted to a defect within the SPA Defects Liability Period (clause 29(1)); therefore limitation under s16N(2) HDA accrued under proviso (b) and the TTPR claims were timely. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction because the SPA, approved plans and vendor's admission established the CACS promise and the vendor's unilateral deviation breached the SPA.

Court Disposition

All four appeals dismissed; High Court judgments affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals B-01(A)-527-07/2022, B-01(A)-528-07/2022, B-01(A)-529-07/2022 and B-01(A)-803-11/2022 dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed
  • Appellant-Vendor to pay costs of RM10,000.00 each to the respective Respondent(s) in the four appeals (total RM40,000.00), subject to allocatur