1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WON

1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WON

The Court held that the 48‑month completion period runs from the date of receipt of the earnest deposit monies by the agent (Messrs NK Tan & Rahim) from the purchasers; the cause of action to claim LAD accrues on the date the purchaser takes vacant possession or the developer completes common facilities and therefore the Plaintiffs are not challenging the validity of SPA clauses such that the claims are not time‑barred; Plaintiffs entitled to LAD quantified per agreed Table A, with interest and costs as ordered.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiffs: Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian & 33 Others; 1st Defendant: Distinctive Resources Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Iskandar Investment Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Liquidated Ascertained Damages and Specific Relief (conversion) / High Court Judgment on Quantification of LAD
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs on quantification of LAD against 1st Defendant.
Legal Topics
Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Vacant Possession, Contract Formation, Accrual of Cause of Action, Retrospectivity
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Limitation Law Housing Development (control and Licensing) Act 1966 Civil Procedure Liquidated Ascertained Damages Vacant Possession Contract Formation +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian & 33 Others

Plaintiffs

Distinctive Resources Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Iskandar Investment Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Liquidated Ascertained Damages and Specific Relief (conversion) / High Court Judgment on Quantification of LAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 48‑month time for delivery of vacant possession runs from (a) date of payment of earnest deposit to agent, (b) date of receipt by developer, or (c) date of the SPA;
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs' claims for LAD are time‑barred under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953;
  3. 3 Whether the cause of action to claim LAD constitutes a challenge to the validity of SPA clauses such that accrual runs from SPA date

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the 48‑month completion period runs from the date of receipt of the earnest deposit monies by the agent (Messrs NK Tan & Rahim) from the purchasers; the cause of action to claim LAD accrues on the date the purchaser takes vacant possession or the developer completes common facilities and therefore the Plaintiffs are not challenging the validity of SPA clauses such that the claims are not time‑barred; Plaintiffs entitled to LAD quantified per agreed Table A, with interest and costs as ordered.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs on quantification of LAD against 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs entitled to recover LAD as quantified in Table A (Booking Fee -> VP Notice + 14 days).
  • Interest to accrue at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement.