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 20 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 20 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 20 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    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?

    Case:

    SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD v. VOON KUAN CHIEN & ANOR [2020] 5 CLJ 619

    Brief Facts:

    • Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd was the developer of a condominium (“Developer”) and had collected booking fees in contravention of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“HDA”) and the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“Regulations”).

     

    • On 6 January 2012 it collected a booking fee of RM10,000 as part of the 10% deposit of the purchase price of a condominium unit and the sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) following the mandatory Schedule H agreement dated 28 June 2012 (statutory form of the SPA).

     

    • When vacant possession was delivered to Voon Kuan Chien and others (“Purchasers”), the Purchasers filed a claim against the Developer with the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims (“Tribunal”) for late delivery of their property.

     

    • The Purchasers argued that the delivery was beyond the 42 month period stipulated in the SPA and the Purchasers had calculated the 42 month period from the date the booking fee was paid.

     

    • The Developer however argued that 42 month period should be calculated from the date of the SPA (i.e. 28 June 2012) to the date of handing over of vacant possession.

     

    • The Developer contended that it was not liable to pay any late delivery claim as the vacant possession date in the SPA was 22 December 2016 which was within 42 calendar months from the date of the SPA on 28 June 2012.

     

    • They further contended that the Purchasers had consented to the payment of the booking fee in deviation of HDA and the Regulations and therefore it is not illegal.

     

    • The Tribunal agreed with the Purchasers on the proper commencement date of the SPA which was to be taken as the date the booking fee was paid.

     

    • Under the award of the Tribunal, the Developer was required to pay the Purchasers a sum of RM40,860-46.

     

    • Dissatisfied, the Developer applied for judicial review to the High Court to quash the Tribunal’s decision.

     

    • The High Court found in favour of the Purchasers and the Developer appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it was irrelevant that the Purchasers consented to the payment of the booking fee because the HDA and the Regulations are there to protect the purchasers and the prohibition would have no bite if a booking fee or a deposit less than 10% of the purchase price is collected without the signing of the SPA.

     

    • The Court essentially held that the Developer cannot circumvent the scope of the HDA and collect a booking fee which was prohibited by law.

     

    • Therefore, the Court had no problem calculating the late delivery claim from the date the booking fee was paid and not from the date of the SPA.

     

    • To calculate the late delivery claim from the SPA date would be to allow the perpetuation of a practice that the Regulations prohibit.
    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 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

    • Legal Update 17 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can service charge received by employees as incentives be incorporated into the calculation of their basic salary to meet the requirement of minimum wage? Case: CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTELRead 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