Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Housing development (control and licensing) act 1966

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2024

1. ) TAN HUEY YUN 2. ) LOH KOK KEONG 3. ) CHEN SIONG LEN 4. ) CHEN SIONG PIN 5. ) CHOW JIAR JUEN 6. ) GOH CHIN MAU 7. ) Jenna Hii Su Eng ( Pertama dan Ke-2 mendakwa secara bersama sebagai Pembeli-Pembeli Bersama dan Pemilik-Pemilik Petak Be

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1648-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1648-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found Plaintiffs' claim was premature and had no viable cause of action because the corrected/perfected strata titles had not been finally perfected and the defendant had taken proper steps (including a separate suit resulting in a consent order) to amend and obtain the appropriate titles; ordering the defendant to effect transfers before completion of the title perfection process would require acts beyond the defendant's power and would amount to an abuse of process. Therefore the defendant's Order 18 r19 strike‑out application succeeded and the originating summons was dismissed.
25 Oct 2023

Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) Chang Mon Fong

Citation

B-01(A)-529-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

B-01(A)-529-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction and the claims were not time barred: the SPA and its Approved Plan promised a CACS, vendor admitted unilateral deviation, and hazardous indoor installation of outdoor compressors amounted to a defect within the SPA's Defect Liability Period; therefore claims were within s16N(2)(b) and timely. Appeals dismissed and High Court decisions affirmed.
19 Sept 2023

1. ) CHOW YE AN 2. ) CHEAH KHAI LIN 3. ) KHOR WAI YANG 4. ) LOO MEI KEE 5. ) IZHAR HADAFI BIN ABDUL HALIM 6. ) LEE HAW JING 7. ) TAN SOKE CHIUN 8. ) YAP WEN KWONG 9. ) CHOO CHUN LIM 10. ) CHOO CHIN YEE 11. ) TEY YUH ZHEN 12. ) CHIEW SAI WEN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-150-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-150-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court concluded the questions listed in Lampiran 1 are legal issues suitable for determination under Order 14A because the material facts relevant to the LAD claims and contract construction were not in dispute on the pleadings and affidavit evidence; the determination would finally dispose of the claims against the defendant. Accordingly Enclosure 19 was allowed and the legal questions were answered in favour of the plaintiffs, without costs, although the court did not at that stage award the LAD amounts payable.
6 Sept 2023

1. ) AFFAN BIN MOHD NAWI 2. ) AHMAD ASRAF BIN ISHAK 3. ) CHAI KWAI YONG 4. ) CHAU KAH YEE 5. ) CHUA KENG HEE 6. ) DING MING DAK 7. ) DING PE FONG 8. ) FANG PEI LING 9. ) GOH CHUN GUAN 10. ) HASIAH BINTI ZAINAL@ZAINAL ABIDIN 11. ) HAYUSNITA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that SPAs governed by the HDA must be interpreted to maximise buyer protection; the Preamble and First Schedule plans (read with clause 34) formed contractual obligations binding D1/D2 to develop the Master Land as a residential development of 110 units and not to carve out commercial development; D3 was held to have made representations and was bound by them through holding-out and branding; the plaintiffs validly sued by writ (private law claims) and reliance on promotional materials was established (disclaimers ineffective as unreadable). However, specific performance to com…
6 Sept 2023

1. ) AFFAN BIN MOHD NAWI 2. ) AHMAD ASRAF BIN ISHAK 3. ) CHAI KWAI YONG 4. ) CHAU KAH YEE 5. ) CHUA KENG HEE 6. ) DING MING DAK 7. ) DING PE FONG 8. ) FANG PEI LING 9. ) GOH CHUN GUAN 10. ) HASIAH BINTI ZAINAL@ZAINAL ABIDIN 11. ) HAYUSNITA

Citation

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-212-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the SPAs' preamble and First Schedule plans formed part of the contractual obligations and, interpreted under the HDA 1966 to maximize buyer protection, bound D1 and D2 to develop the Master Land as a 110-unit residential development; D3 was held to have made and held out representations (branding/marketing) and thus was bound by collateral representations; however the SPAs did not oblige the developer to build a central refuse chamber as common property and specific performance to compel construction of the remaining units within 36 months was refused; declarations and an…
14 Dec 2022

Sazean Development Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penggulungan) Maha Pesona Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-435-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-435-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, being in liquidation and having obtained the Court of Appeal outcome that set aside prior HC orders, established a prima facie entitlement and the defendant failed to raise any triable issue; the defendant's attempted set-off of LAD against the final 20% was impermissible in the liquidation context where mutual credits were not properly due and where LAD must be proved and dealt with through the liquidator and the Housing Development Account; accordingly summary judgment under O.81 was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff.
5 Jul 2022

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

Citation

BA-25-61-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-61-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s16N(2) because the centralised air‑conditioning formed part of the SPA as evidenced by approved plans, the Deed of Mutual Covenant and admissions by the applicant; the claims fell within the SPA defect/liability period (clause 29) and thus were within the statutory time limit; the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by considering the technical report and human/environmental factors and its award was within the RM50,000 limit, therefore the judicial review failed and the application was dismissed.
11 Feb 2022

REGENCY LAND SDN BHD 1. ) NORISMAIL BIN HAJI ISMAN 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

Citation

BA-25-15-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-15-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The extension letter was issued by an officer without authority to bind the Minister/Housing Controller; therefore the extension was ultra vires and ineffective, Schedule G's mandatory 24‑month vacant possession period applies, and the Tribunal correctly reverted delivery to 24 months and awarded LAD accordingly; the High Court therefore dismissed the judicial review and upheld the Tribunal's decision.
2 Nov 2020

SKS SOUTHERN SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI MB BUILDERS SDN. BHD.) 1. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH MALAYSIA 2. REMEGGIOUS KRISHNAN

Citation

J-01(A)-580-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

J-01(A)-580-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court erred in treating non‑response as an automatic admission in a Judicial Review; the Tribunal misconstrued Clause 27(1)(c) which requires utilities to be "ready for connection" not actually connected; and critically the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by entertaining two split claims concerning the same subject matter that together exceeded the RM50,000 statutory jurisdictional limit under Sections 16M and 16Q HDA 1966; accordingly the Tribunal's Award was nullity and was quashed by certiorari.
28 Oct 2020

TERMINAL PERINTIS SDN BHD 1. ) ROSHIDAH BINTE MOHAMAD 2. ) JULIAN LEE CATHRO

Citation

JA-12BNCVC-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCVC-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant had admitted in its pleadings that it was a licensed housing developer at all material times (including the OTP date), and the OTP together with official receipts and clause treating the earnest money as part payment constituted a binding contract such that time for delivery and calculation of LAD began from the date of the OTP (24-12-2012), not the later S&P execution date.