Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate of completion and compliance (ccc)

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

1. ) ANUAR BIN MAHMOOD 2. ) FARIDAH BINTE AHMAD JOHOR LAND BERHAD

Citation

JA-22C-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22C-4-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Developer breached contractual and tortious duties by delivering a property not built in a good and workmanlike manner (not fit for habitation), failed to rectify within the 30-day defect period, plaintiffs' refusal of further rectification was reasonable due to legitimate safety concerns, defendant liable in negligence but quantum determined under contractual remedies; judgment for plaintiffs in part with quantified awards.
17 Dec 2025

1. ) Chia Kim Hoong 2. ) Puvaneswary a/p Raja Gopal 3. ) Jayraj a/l Thanapalu 4. ) Hema Nathan a/l Raja Gopal 5. ) Marzuk bin Hashim 6. ) Ruhaiza Azereen binti Abdul Rani 7. ) Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Rahman Eco Green City Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-31-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-31-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly found the action to be an abuse of process for contravening a binding High Court order, the consolidated LAD claims exceeded the Sessions Court's RM1,000,000 monetary jurisdiction, the appellants lacked standing to impugn a CCC issued for the entire development without proper parties and notice, the appellants failed to comply with the SPA Clause 25 defect regime and could not establish a private cause of action under Regulation 5(3) HDR; summary disposal under Order 14A/33 was therefore appropriate.
26 Aug 2025

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) FONG LAI CHENG

Citation

BA-25-91-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-91-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Appeal Board acted within its statutory jurisdiction under section 23(3) of the TCPA 1976 in allowing the appeal and directing issuance of planning permission subject to conditions (including removal of additional structures); the Board's finding that a CCC existed was supported by materials before it; MBPJ had failed to place before the Board evidence on quota, safety or traffic and therefore could not rely on those matters in judicial review; undertakings and alleged deviations were either considered by the Board or not sufficiently established by MBPJ to demonstrate…
13 Feb 2025

1. ) CHU JIN HAU 2. ) ONG LAN YIT 3. ) CHU OI VUN 4. ) FOO POH WAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) LIM HOOI YONG 6. ) SOO KING LOKE 7. ) LEONG NGOO @ LEONG YUE THIN 8. ) ONG LAM MOOI 9. ) YONG MIEN DEE 10. ) GLOBAL KIARA SDN BHD 11. ) CBD RESOURCES S

Citation

BA-22C-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed plaintiffs' Order 14A claims against 1st and 2nd defendants where plaintiffs lacked locus standi to pursue declarations affecting entire development and where many claims were time‑barred or academic; however court held the JMB (3rd defendant) unlawfully imposed and collected maintenance charges on a PSF and multiple‑rate basis from formation (13.12.2014) to 30.9.2020 and directed recalculation of charges and sinking fund on allocated share units and a single rate with mechanism for any excess refunds, awarding costs accordingly.
6 Jan 2025

EKOVEST CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) CHONG SEW MAY 2. ) CHONG CHEE SIEN

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-62-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-62-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that settlement letters prepared by the developer did not extinguish statutory rights to additional LAD absent clear, compelling evidence and compliance with regulatory requirements; LAD is properly calculated from the date of the purchaser's deposit/payment and runs until issuance of the full CCC/Form F; accordingly the purchasers' claims were within the limitation period and recoverable. The appellant's appeals are dismissed and the respondents' cross-appeals are allowed in the amounts awarded below.
19 Apr 2024

Hong Cin Yee 1. ) Oristana Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Ho Ka Yi

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge was plainly wrong in failing to consider pleaded admissions and contemporaneous evidence that the premises lacked a valid CCC and were subject to agricultural-use restrictions; a term requiring a valid CCC was properly implied given the commercial purpose and admissions, and because the intended industrial use would breach land-use conditions the agreement was tainted by illegality under s24 Contracts Act 1950 and National Land Code; therefore the deposit must be returned and the agent is not entitled to commission; prejudgment interest was not awarded as the claim for refund…
31 Mar 2023

LADANG VENU (M) SDN. BHD. D Pristine Medini Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 24 to allow the Plaintiff's application for production and inspection because the affidavit specifically described documents (Building Plans and CCC) that were relevant to issues in dispute, were believed to be in the Defendant's possession, and were necessary for the fair disposal of the suit; accordingly Defendant was ordered to produce the listed documents within 14 days and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
31 Mar 2023

LADANG VENU (M) SDN. BHD. D Pristine Medini Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove misrepresentation or breach; the architect's Form F1 was valid for the partial completion of Tower 1 and Tower 2 after requisite approvals, the Defendant delivered vacant possession in accordance with the SPA, and therefore Plaintiff's claims for rescission, refunds and damages were dismissed.
31 Mar 2023

LADANG VENU (M) SDN. BHD. D Pristine Medini Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-187-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the defendant's striking out application because the plaintiff's pleaded case raises reasonable triable issues of fact and law that are not plainly or obviously unsustainable; the matters require full trial and witness evidence rather than summary dismissal under Order 18 r 19; accordingly the plaintiff has shown a cause of action and the interlocutory application must fail.
1 Jan 2023

KEMUDI TIMUR ELEKTRONIK SDN BHD KB SMART DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

DA-22NCvC-49-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-49-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant breached the PJB by failing to deliver vacant possession with CCC within the contractual 24 months; Plaintiff is entitled to pursue general and special damages under Section 74 in addition to LAD where losses are proven; Plaintiff failed to prove speculative loss of rental income and diminution but proved loss of quiet enjoyment and inconvenience and specific proved costs; therefore Plaintiff's partial claims succeed and Defendant is liable for specified damages, interest and costs.