VIGNESH NAIDU A/L KUPPUSAMY NAIDU PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

VIGNESH NAIDU A/L KUPPUSAMY NAIDU PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

The Court held that regulation 11(3) is ultra vires (per Ang Ming Lee) so any extension under it and any amendment of the statutory Schedule H completion period to 54 months is void; estoppel cannot validate an ultra vires amendment; the appellant's cause of action for LAD accrued upon taking vacant possession (February 2017) and the claim filed in August 2020 is within the six-year limitation; writ proceedings were appropriate and Ang Ming Lee applies retrospectively absent a contrary pronouncement by the Federal Court.

Citation
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-880-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Vignesh Naidu A/L Kuppusamy Naidu; Respondent/defendant: Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 April 2022
Case Number
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-880-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decisions set aside.
Legal Topics
Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Statutory Contract (schedule H), Ultra Vires, Extension of Time (regulation 11(3)), Estoppel, Prospective Overruling, Summary Judgment, Striking Out
Source Language
Malay/English
Housing Development Law Contract Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Liquidated Ascertained Damages Statutory Contract (schedule H) Ultra Vires +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vignesh Naidu A/L Kuppusamy Naidu

Appellant/plaintiff

Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time granted under regulation 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 is valid
  2. 2 Whether amendment of SPA completion period from 36 to 54 months is binding
  3. 3 Whether estoppel or waiver can validate an ultra vires administrative act/statutory contract amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that regulation 11(3) is ultra vires (per Ang Ming Lee) so any extension under it and any amendment of the statutory Schedule H completion period to 54 months is void; estoppel cannot validate an ultra vires amendment; the appellant's cause of action for LAD accrued upon taking vacant possession (February 2017) and the claim filed in August 2020 is within the six-year limitation; writ proceedings were appropriate and Ang Ming Lee applies retrospectively absent a contrary pronouncement by the Federal Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decisions set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court orders dismissing summary judgment and allowing striking out
  • Allow the appellant's summary judgment application (enclosure 5) against the respondent