Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 1 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 1 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 1 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 7 January, 2021 | 0

    Can an extension of time for delivery of vacant possession of a property be granted by the Controller of Housing?

    Case:

    ANG MING LEE & ORS v. MENTERI KESEJAHTERAAN BANDAR, PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS [2019] 1 LNS 1741

    Brief Facts:

    • By a sale and purchase agreement dated 3 May 2012 (“SPA”) entered into between the developer and the purchasers, it was agreed that the delivery of vacant possession of the units shall be thirty-six (36) months from the date of the signing of the respective SPAs.

     

    • The SPAs were made pursuant to the statutorily prescribed form under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“Regulations”).

     

    • Subparagraph 25(2) of Schedule H provides that if the developer fails to deliver vacant possession within thirty-six (36) months, the developer shall be liable to pay the purchaser, liquidated damages (“LAD”).

     

    • The developer vide a letter dated 20 October 2014, applied for an extension of time for the delivery of vacant possession of the units to the purchasers which was made to the Controller of Housing (“Controller”) pursuant to the Regulations.

     

    • Briefly, the reasons relied upon by the developer in support of its application for extension of time were as follows:

    i)   non-stop complaints by nearby residents due to extended working hours;

    ii)  stop work orders issued by the local authorities; and

    iii) investigation conducted on the piling contractor.

     

    • The Controller rejected the developer’s application for extension of time vide a letter dated 24 October 2014.

     

    • Dissatisfied with the decision of the Controller, the developer, vide a letter dated 28 October 2014, appealed to the Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government (“Minister”) and the appeal was made pursuant to the Regulations.

     

    • The developer’s appeal for the extension of time was purportedly allowed by the Minister in which the Minister vide its letter dated 17 November 2015, granted an extension of twelve (12) months to the developer (“Said Letter”).

     

    • It is to be noted that the Said Letter was signed on behalf of the Controller and there was no indication from the face of the letter that this decision was conveyed on behalf of the Minister or that the signatory was acting on the authority of the Minister.

     

    • Therefore, the developer had forty-eight (48) months to deliver vacant possession of the condominium units to the purchasers instead of the statutorily prescribed period of thirty-six (36) months.

     

    • As a result of the extension of time, the purchasers were unable to claim for the LAD as provided in the SPAs.

     

    • Aggrieved by the decision of the Minister in granting the extension of time, the purchasers filed an application in Court against the Minister, the Controller and the developer to quash the decision to grant the extension of time.

     

    • In the High Court, the High Court allowed the judicial review application and granted orders in favour of the purchasers.

     

    • Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the developer appealed to the Court of Appeal.

     

    • The Court of Appeal found that the impression gained from considering the whole of the Said Letter is that the appeal from the decision of the Controller was decided by the Controller himself which, to put it mildly, was wholly untenable.

     

    • The developer appealed to the Federal Court on the basis that the Minister has delegated his power to the Controller to make a decision under the Regulations.

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION – APPEAL BY THE DEVELOPER DISMISSED!

    • The Federal Court dismissed the appeal by the developer on the basis that the legislative intent of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 is that whilst the Controller is given the power to investigate on the reason why a licensed housing developer is unable to meet his obligation to the purchasers, it is the Minister who is empowered to give directions and make decisions.

     

    • It is the Minister who is entrusted or empowered by Parliament to regulate the terms and conditions of the contract of sale. The Minister cannot delegate the power to regulate to the Controller.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a person who has given a property by way of a gift claim caveatable interest over the said property subsequently? Case: HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI v. TAN SRI DATO’ KAM WOON WAH & ANORRead more

    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser of an auction property claim trespass on the basis that it was unaware of the existence of retention pond and structures on the auction land? Case: BAYANGAN SEPADU SDN BHD v. JABATANRead more

    • Legal Update 23 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a management corporation suspend the usage of the common facilities or common services due to arrears owing by a proprietor, which arrears are disputed by the proprietor? Case: PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE v.Read more

    • Legal Update 22 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser claim for the potential loss of profit on a property successfully bid at an auction if the property bid is subsequently claimed by someone else later? Case: PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT TANAH DANRead more

    • Legal Update 21 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the courts grant an extension of time for completion of a contract which performance has been delayed or hindered due to the movement control order? Case: HO KEAN PIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD &Read more

    • Legal Update 20 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      If there was late delivery of a property to the buyer, should damages for late delivery be calculated from the date of the sale and purchase agreement or the date the booking fee was paid?Read more

    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the management corporation of a building enact house rules to prohibit short-term rentals? Case: INNAB SALIL & ORS v. VERVE SUITES MONT’ KIARA (CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-74-10/2019(W) Brief Facts: Innab Salil and others (“SaidRead more

    • Legal Update 18 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can statistical data not premised on words be found to be defamatory in nature? Case: SUN MEDIA CORPORATION SDN BHD v. THE NIELSEN COMPANY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD [2020] 7 CLJ 751 Brief Facts: Sun MediaRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory

      JHJ had the pleasure of meeting one …

    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

      It is the last month of the …

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021
    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)
    • Legal Update 23 of 2020
    • Legal Update 22 of 2020
    • Legal Update 21 of 2020
    • Legal Update 20 of 2020
    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • 20th Anniversary
    • About
    • Articles
    • Associates
    • Careers
    • Consultant
    • Contact Us
      • Ipoh
      • Kota Bharu
      • Melaka
      • Petaling Jaya
    • Disclaimer
    • Home
    • Industry Experience
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Legal Updates
    • Nature Of Practice
    • News & Bulletin
    • Our People
    • Partners
      • Adrian Thambyrajah
      • Jayadeep Bhanudevan
      • Siti Aminah Md Hanafi
    • Practice Areas
      • Banking & Finance
      • Building & Construction
      • Commerce & Trading
      • Corporate And Commercial
      • Dispute resolution, Arbitration & Mediation
      • Energy Oil & Gas
      • Healthcare
      • Human Resource & Industrial Relations
      • Information & Communication Technology
      • Insurance and Takaful
      • Knowledge and Advisory
      • Mining & Quarrying
      • Real Estate and Property Related Ventures
      • Telecommunication
      • Transportation and Logistics
    • Privacy Notice
    • Privacy Policy and Data Protection
    • Publications
    • We Care
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil