SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: SINERJUTA SDN. BHD.; Respondent: TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH; Respondent: CHIA WONG CHIN; Respondent: WEE ENG HOW; Respondent: WONG SIEW PENG; Respondent: LEONG CHOI HUNG; Respondent: SITI FATHIAH BINTI MAT RAHIM; Respondent: LOW SIEW CHIN; Respondent: CHIA LI SHIA; Respondent: ANG CHEE KIANG; Respondent: SIOU FEI PIN; Respondent: YAP SIEW YIN; Respondent: LOW WENG LOON; Respondent: TEH WEI YEOW; Respondent: CARMEN WONG; Respondent: SOH KAH WAI; Respondent: ONG TZER YEEN; Respondent: LEE KIT WAN; Respondent: LEONG HON SAM; Respondent: CHIN SAU FONG; Respondent: CHOW KOK KONG; Respondent: NG YEOK CHENG; Respondent: THING SOH WEN; Respondent: TANG BENG CHENG; Respondent: SHIU HUEY WEN; Respondent: KAVEETHAN A/L SHANMUGAM; Respondent: TANG LI MIN; Respondent: HIEW KIEN CHUNG; Respondent: ONG AI RIN; Respondent: CH'NG SEONG LIM; Respondent: TAN SEE MUN; Respondent: YONG KOK POH; Respondent: LIM TEONG GHEE; Respondent: LO SOU YON; Respondent: LIM WEI CHUN; Respondent: LIM WEI XUE; Respondent: FAISAL BIN RAMLI; Respondent: NOOR AZLIN BINTI MUHAMMAD HANAPI; Respondent: THEE KIEN SIONG; Respondent: DAPHNE KOH CHOON KWEE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Case Number
WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (applications Dismissed)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidated and Ascertained Damages, Vacant Possession, Statutory Contract (schedule H), Judicial Review, Formation of Contract, Quantification of Damages
Administrative Law Housing Law Contract Law Liquidated and Ascertained Damages Vacant Possession Statutory Contract (schedule H) Judicial Review Formation of Contract +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD.

Applicant

TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

Respondent

CHIA WONG CHIN

Respondent

WEE ENG HOW

Respondent

WONG SIEW PENG

Respondent

LEONG CHOI HUNG

Respondent

SITI FATHIAH BINTI MAT RAHIM

Respondent

LOW SIEW CHIN

Respondent

CHIA LI SHIA

Respondent

ANG CHEE KIANG

Respondent

SIOU FEI PIN

Respondent

YAP SIEW YIN

Respondent

LOW WENG LOON

Respondent

TEH WEI YEOW

Respondent

CARMEN WONG

Respondent

SOH KAH WAI

Respondent

ONG TZER YEEN

Respondent

LEE KIT WAN

Respondent

LEONG HON SAM

Respondent

CHIN SAU FONG

Respondent

CHOW KOK KONG

Respondent

NG YEOK CHENG

Respondent

THING SOH WEN

Respondent

TANG BENG CHENG

Respondent

SHIU HUEY WEN

Respondent

KAVEETHAN A/L SHANMUGAM

Respondent

TANG LI MIN

Respondent

HIEW KIEN CHUNG

Respondent

ONG AI RIN

Respondent

CH'NG SEONG LIM

Respondent

TAN SEE MUN

Respondent

YONG KOK POH

Respondent

LIM TEONG GHEE

Respondent

LO SOU YON

Respondent

LIM WEI CHUN

Respondent

LIM WEI XUE

Respondent

FAISAL BIN RAMLI

Respondent

NOOR AZLIN BINTI MUHAMMAD HANAPI

Respondent

THEE KIEN SIONG

Respondent

DAPHNE KOH CHOON KWEE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment (applications Dismissed)

  1. 1 Whether the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession runs from the date of the SPA or from the date of payment of booking fee/deposit
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's computation of LAD was erroneous
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's decision was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety or clear computational error; judicial review dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review applications in all 26 matters dismissed
  • Costs of RM1000 to be paid to the Respondents in each suit