Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Schedule h sale and purchase agreement

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2025

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

Citation

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The challenge to the 48-month completion period is time-barred because a cause of action attacking valid contractual clauses accrued on execution of the SPAs per Obata-Ambak; therefore LAD based solely on the 36→48 month difference cannot be recovered unless delay extends beyond the valid 48 months. However, the legality and effect of the Controller's wholesale exemption for the Private Lease Scheme raise substantial questions of law (potential conflict with HDA, NLC, STA, SMA and Loh Tina precedent) that cannot be resolved on a striking out application and require trial (or a contested O14A)…
14 Nov 2022

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court rejected the defendant's request to postpone the plaintiffs' summary judgment because the defendant filed Enclosure 30 belatedly, failed to show exceptional circumstances, the social purpose of Schedule H favoured timely resolution for purchasers, there was no risk of irreparable injustice to the defendant, and claims against the proposed public authority co-defendants were likely time-barred, so disposal of the summary judgment ought not be delayed.
12 Sept 2022

Muhammad Muaz bin Abdul Malek Modal Ehsan Sdn Bhd

Citation

24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that LADs commence from date of each purchaser's deposit/booking fee irrespective of subsequent refund treatment, the end date for LAD for vacant possession is the deemed taking date (30 days after developer's notice, here 10 July 2021), the end date for LAD for common facilities is the CCC date (11 June 2021), the COVID-19 Act 2020 statutory exemption period of 167 days is excluded from LAD computation, and the Defendant's counterclaim against the 8th Plaintiff is dismissed.
12 Sept 2022

Muhammad Muaz bin Abdul Malek Modal Ehsan Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-408-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

LADs are to be computed from the date of payment of the deposit/booking fee; the end date for LAD for vacant possession is the purchaser's deemed taking 30 days after the developer's notice (here 10 July 2021); the end date for LAD for common facilities is the date of issuance of the CCC (11 June 2021); the statutory exemption period of 19.3.2020–31.8.2020 (167 days) is to be excluded from computation; on quantum the defendant's computations were accepted and the defendant's counterclaim against the 8th plaintiff was dismissed.
18 Aug 2022

1. ) Tee Kian Chiong 2. ) Lin Fong Fong 3. ) Wong Wei Mun 4. ) Lim Boon Lien 5. ) Ko Hooi Kwan 6. ) Joshua Tan Chia Hue 7. ) Lim Jen Jen 8. ) Pui Wee Kong 9. ) Ng Swee Luan 10. ) Ling Hock Chon 11. ) Hoe Kim Wah 12. ) Mawan Noor Aini binti

Citation

BA-22NCVC-102-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-102-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Controller's purported 18-month extension is ultra vires and disregarded; the 36-month delivery period is computed from the deposit/payment; plaintiffs' LAD claims accrue on taking vacant possession and are within limitation; the settlement letters signed by some purchasers raise a genuine triable issue as to their validity and effect, therefore summary striking out is inappropriate for those claims; summary judgment granted only for purchasers who did not sign settlement letters and where no triable defence existed.
20 Apr 2022

1. ) LEE THAM LAI 2. ) LEE SHET LI JIWA MEWAH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-6444-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-6444-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the defendant failed to demonstrate triable issues. The regulatory approval to extend the completion period from 36 to 48 months was ultra vires and not binding; accordingly Schedule H timeframes govern and LAD calculation starts from the booking fee date. After excluding the COVID-19 statutory exclusion period the plaintiffs established a delay of 416 days and are entitled to judgment. Summary judgment under Order 14 was entered for the plaintiffs with costs.
28 Oct 2021

Chong Eng Neo Mammoth Empire Land Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-194-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-194-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff had locus standi under s22C and clause 7; the Housing Ministry purported extension of time was ultra vires and void; liquidated damages for delay in both vacant possession and common facilities are computed from 6.9.2014 until deemed delivery on 8.9.2020 (for vacant possession) and until 17.3.2020 (for common facilities as pleaded); LAD must be computed using the purchase price stated in the Schedule H SPA; no triable issues existed and summary judgment for plaintiff was appropriate.
30 Sept 2021

Chow Tat Chow Mammoth Empire Land Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-152-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-152-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment granted because statutory scheme and controlling authorities establish immediate entitlement to LAD under Schedule H SPA once completion date passed; plaintiffs had locus standi under s22C and clause 7; LAD must be computed on the SPA purchase price; claimed bank interest is subsumed within LAD and its separate recovery would cause impermissible double recovery; defendant raised no triable issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
10 Feb 2021

CHONG CHIM TIONG MAMMOTH EMPIRE LAND SDN BHD

Citation

BA-B52NCvC-234-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B52NCvC-234-09/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case; defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issues on affidavit. The purported extension of time was invalid under Ang Ming Lee and Schedule H is statutory and cannot be varied. Plaintiff retained locus standi despite a charge to the bank and LAD computation from the booking fee is correct. Summary judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for RM806,219.57 plus interest and costs.
10 Feb 2021

CHONG CHIM TIONG MAMMOTH EMPIRE LAND SDN BHD

Citation

B52NCVC-234-09-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B52NCVC-234-09-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case; defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issues or provide documentary evidence to rebut liability. The purported extension of time by the Housing Ministry was invalid under Ang Ming Lee and related authority and could not vary the statutorily prescribed Schedule H terms. Plaintiff retained locus standi despite the financier charge and LAD computation correctly commences from payment of booking fees; summary judgment therefore entered for plaintiff for RM806,219.57 plus 5% p.a. from 29.9.2020 and costs RM4,000.