Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Split claims

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2023

TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 1. ) RJ REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) Anna Chin Kui Len

Citation

Q-01(A)-174-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

Q-01(A)-174-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held Sarawak HDO 2013 and Sarawak HDR 2014 operate as social legislation to protect purchasers; regulation prohibiting collection of payments except under the prescribed SPA means payment of booking fees before execution of SPA must be treated as the effective contracting date for purposes of LAD; booking fees do not operate as an independent option to purchase under Sarawak law; Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction on split technical and non‑technical claims; High Court erred in quashing portions of Tribunal awards and its order was set aside, appeals allowed and cross‑appeals dismisse…
25 Jan 2022

REMEGGIOUS KRISHNAN SKS SOUTHERN SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-50-09/2021(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-50-09/2021(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that 'same matter' in s16Q HDA 1966 refers to the same issue or cause of action, not merely the same property; therefore split claims are permissible where they concern different and distinct matters and each claim individually falls within the Tribunal's RM50,000 jurisdiction under s16M. The court further held Clause 27 read with Clause 1(k) of the SPA required actual electricity supply for vacant possession and damages were properly awarded for non-connection; accordingly the Court of Appeal order was set aside, the High Court order restored and appeal allowed.
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.

Malaysia Case Law

TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 1. ) RJ REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) Anna Chin Kui Len

REMEGGIOUS KRISHNAN SKS SOUTHERN SDN BHD

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