Malaysia Case Law

25 Oct 2023

LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) SOH LI HUI 3. ) TAY WEI LONG

Citation

B-01(A)-528-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

A

Case number

B-01(A)-528-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the unilateral amendment and abandonment of the Approved Plan (promised CACS) and the hazardous indoor installation of outdoor AC condensers constituted defects within the SPA’s Defects Liability Clause, therefore the 12-month limitation in s16N(2) accrued from the expiry of the DLP (s16N(2)(b)); the Tribunal’s decision fell within its statutory jurisdiction and was not time barred. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the High Court decisions affirmed.

• Housing development (control and licensing) act 1966 section 16n(2)
• Defects liability period
• Sale and purchase agreement and approved plan
• Deed of mutual covenant
• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Time limitation for claims

17 Aug 2023

TRIBUNAL FOR HOUSING PURCHASER CLAIMS 1. ) RJ REALTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LIEW KHING ANN

Citation

Q-01(A)-221-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

A

Case number

Q-01(A)-221-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court quashing of Tribunal awards: Sarawak HDO 2013/HDR 2014 is social legislation to be construed purposively; Regulation 9(4) prohibits collection of payments except under the prescribed SPA so payment of booking fees prior to SPA constitutes the operative date for the contract for LAD purposes; therefore LAD is calculated from date of booking fee payment; Tribunal acted within jurisdiction and its awards were not tainted by jurisdictional error; developer cross-appeals were incompetent or without merit and dismissed.

• Liquidated ascertained damages
• Booking fees
• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Social legislation
• Judicial review
• Sale and purchase agreement

14 Sept 2020

Perbadanan Pengurusan Sunrise Towers (No. Pendaftaran PTG/PB/DTL/777/2011) 1. Tribunal Pengurusan Strata 2. Brijnandan Singh a/l Gurcharan Singh

Citation

PA-25-54-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA-25-54-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the tribunal lawfully dismissed the claim because the applicant failed to prove service of the sealed Form 1 within the timeframe mandated by reg.9 (and reg.9(2) makes an expired Form 1 ineffective); that failure was jurisdictional and not a curable technicality; oral reasons delivered at pronouncement satisfied s.117(2) and written reasons provided later removed any procedural defect; no serious irregularity causing substantial injustice was established, so judicial review was dismissed with costs.

• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Service of process
• Statutory notices (form 1, form 20)
• Compliance with regulations
• Requirements for reasons in tribunal awards
• Judicial review remedies

11 Nov 2019

LOKANATH A/L RAMANATH 1.TRIBUNAL PENGURUSAN STRATA. 2. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PRIMA DAMANSARA

Citation

WA-24-22-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-24-22-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s70(7) to enforce by-laws; the Tribunal complied with s113 by giving both parties opportunity to present evidence and submissions; legal representation was not required under s110(2); delay in award was justified by the Tribunal President's ill health and oral reasons (with written decision) satisfied s117(2); evidence established the plaintiff altered the external facade in breach of by-laws and the Stop Work Order was valid; no serious irregularity under s121 was shown, therefore the application to set aside the award was dismissed.

• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Natural justice
• Legal representation at tribunal
• Delay in award
• Enforcement of by-laws
• Judicial review under s121 sma 2013

Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims vs Westcourt Corporation Sdn Bhd

Citation

Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims vs Westcourt Corporation Sdn Bhd

Court

Malaysian court

The Court held that s.16N(2) limits jurisdiction by reference to the cause of action and statutory time-limits (certificate of fitness or defects liability expiry) and does not impose a cut-off by date of the sale and purchase agreement; s.16AD penalizes only post-establishment failure to comply with Tribunal awards and does not criminalize past breaches, so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims based on agreements entered into before 1 December 2002; the Amending Act must be construed purposively as social legislation.

• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Retrospectivity of legislation
• Purposive interpretation of social legislation
• Penalties for non-compliance with tribunal awards