Case:

Brief Facts:

• The appellant, Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd (“Country Garden”) is the developer of a project known as Country Garden Danga Bay (“the Project”).
  
  
• The second respondent is one of the house buyers of a one-unit apartment of the Project (“the Homebuyer”).
  
  
• Country Garden had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the Homebuyer for the sale and purchase of a unit of an apartment in the Project.
  
  
• Upon completion of the Project and the issuance of notice to deliver vacant possession, the Homebuyer accepted the delivery of vacant possession and proceeded to renovate the said unit to suit his requirements.
  
  
• Approximately 2 months after the date of acceptance of the delivery of vacant possession, the Homebuyer brought a home buyer’s claim against Country Garden, on the grounds that a wrong unit had been given, which apparently contradicted the terms in the SPA.
  
  
• The Homebuyer claimed that he was given a unit with an opened balcony, when he was entitled to a covered balcony.
  
  
• He relied on the display model which he alleged carried units with a covered balcony which he identified as the type of unit he wanted to buy to the sale representative.

THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR HOMEBUYER CLAIMS, THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL

• The Tribunal had given the ruling to amend the specifications of the SPA under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“the Act”) to entitle the Homebuyer to get a unit with covered balcony, and held that the feature of the display model carrying a covered balcony was binding on Country Garden.
  
  
• The High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Tribunal.

THE FEDERAL COURT – APPEAL ALLOWED!

• The Federal Court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Tribunal.
  
  
• As the provision of the covered balcony was not provided for in the SPA, the Tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration the display model instead of the SPA.
  
  
• Under the Act, the Tribunal can only hear claims arising from the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into between a homebuyer and a housing developer.
  
  
• Further, the technical inspection report prepared had also confirmed that the said unit delivered to the Homebuyer was in compliance with the SPA, as opposed to the Homebuyer’s complaint.
  
  
• Hence, not only was the decision of the Tribunal against the provision of the SPA, but it also contradicted the finding in the technical inspection report.
  
  
• The Tribunal was also wrong when it varied the content of specifications under the SPA.
  
  
• The Tribunal can only exercise its power under the Act to vary or set aside the SPA when there is a clause in the SPA that is inconsistent with the statutory terms provided in the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989.