Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory contract (schedule h)

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety or clear computational error; judicial review dismissed.
18 Jun 2025

YAN AI HONG SKT CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Citation

DA-A52NCvC-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A52NCvC-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Because the sale was a statutory Schedule H contract, the developer was immediately liable for liquidated damages under Clauses 25 and 27 once completion dates passed; the defendant's asserted cause of delay (plaintiff's renovations) failed because defendant consented and withheld material witness evidence and did not seek statutory extension; therefore plaintiff entitled to RM225,067.39 and defendant's counterclaims fail.
6 Jan 2025

EKOVEST CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) TAN TIONG HWA 2. ) LIM SWEE PEI

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-63-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-63-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Settlement letters did not extinguish purchasers' statutory entitlement to additional LAD because there was no clear, informed intention to waive those statutory rights; LAD is properly calculated from the deposit/payment start date until issuance of the full Certificate of Completion and Compliance (Borang F), and the purchasers' claims were not statute-barred as cause of action arose at delivery of vacant possession per SPA; accordingly the developer's appeal is dismissed and respondents' cross-appeals are allowed.
7 Apr 2022

VIGNESH NAIDU A/L KUPPUSAMY NAIDU PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-880-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-880-04/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that regulation 11(3) is ultra vires (per Ang Ming Lee) so any extension under it and any amendment of the statutory Schedule H completion period to 54 months is void; estoppel cannot validate an ultra vires amendment; the appellant's cause of action for LAD accrued upon taking vacant possession (February 2017) and the claim filed in August 2020 is within the six-year limitation; writ proceedings were appropriate and Ang Ming Lee applies retrospectively absent a contrary pronouncement by the Federal Court.
24 Jan 2022

AMPROJEK CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD LOO KUO FONG

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-61-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-61-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Controller's extension was invalid because regulation 11(3) is ultra vires and cannot alter the mandatory Schedule H statutory contract; accordingly the SPA's 36-month completion term governs, LAD runs from the deposit date, there were no triable issues and summary judgment was properly entered; Ang Ming Lee applies retrospectively.
23 Mar 2021

LAM SU SEE PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-418-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-418-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the SPA is a statutory Schedule H contract and the EOT under regulation 11(3) HDR is ultra vires, the 54‑month variation is void; LAD is payable based on the statutory 36‑month period with accrual on deemed vacant possession (6.2.2017); the settlement did not extinguish statutory entitlement; defendant raised no triable issue, so summary judgment entered for plaintiff.
22 Feb 2021

LEONG KENG CHIANG PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-460-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-460-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prescribed Schedule H terms are statutory and immutable; regulation 11(3) and any EOT under it are ultra vires per Ang Ming Lee so the 54-month completion in the SPA is void; therefore vacant possession is measured against the statutory 36 months and Defendant breached the statutory timeline; no triable issues existed so summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate; Plaintiff was entitled to LAD of RM277,561.64, interest and costs.
10 Feb 2021

Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) HO CHEE KIAN

Citation

01(f)-17-07/2020(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-17-07/2020(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce or add contractual specifications not contained in the SPA; s16N(2) confines Tribunal jurisdiction to causes of action arising within the SPA and s16Y(2)(e) permits variation only to ensure compliance with statutory Schedule terms; the claimant was estopped from challenging the unit after accepting vacant possession and renovating; there was no breach of natural justice. The Tribunal award was set aside and appeal allowed.