REMEGGIOUS KRISHNAN SKS SOUTHERN SDN BHD

REMEGGIOUS KRISHNAN SKS SOUTHERN SDN BHD

The Federal Court held that 'same matter' in s16Q HDA 1966 refers to the same issue or cause of action, not merely the same property; therefore split claims are permissible where they concern different and distinct matters and each claim individually falls within the Tribunal's RM50,000 jurisdiction under s16M. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
02(f)-50-09/2021(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant (purchaser): Remeggious Krishnan; Respondent (developer): SKS Southern Sdn Bhd (formerly MB Builders Sdn Bhd)
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Case Number
02(f)-50-09/2021(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (federal Court) From Court of Appeal and High Court (judicial Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Court of Appeal order set aside. High Court order restored.
Legal Topics
Tribunal Jurisdiction, Split Claims, Vacant Possession, Damages, Statutory Interpretation, Limitation
Housing Law Administrative Law Contract Law Tribunal Jurisdiction Split Claims Vacant Possession Damages Statutory Interpretation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Remeggious Krishnan

Appellant (purchaser)

SKS Southern Sdn Bhd (formerly MB Builders Sdn Bhd)

Respondent (developer)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (federal Court) From Court of Appeal and High Court (judicial Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may hear two separate claims in respect of the same property where the combined amount exceeds RM50,000 (ss 16M and 16Q HDA 1966)
  2. 2 Whether developer is exempt from paying damages for breach of manner of delivery (Schedule H/Clause 27 SPA) if still within overall delivery timeline
  3. 3 Whether purchaser's right to claim for breach under Schedule H arises after actual delivery of vacant possession or after statutory deadline (Limitation Act issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held that 'same matter' in s16Q HDA 1966 refers to the same issue or cause of action, not merely the same property; therefore split claims are permissible where they concern different and distinct matters and each claim individually falls within the Tribunal's RM50,000 jurisdiction under s16M. The court further held Clause 27 read with Clause 1(k) of the SPA required actual electricity supply for vacant possession and damages were properly awarded for non-connection; accordingly the Court of Appeal order was set aside, the High Court order restored and appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Court of Appeal order set aside. High Court order restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the Court of Appeal set aside