“Was the 54-month period of delivery in the Sale and Purchase Agreement valid?”
Case:
OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD V PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS [2024] 6 MLRA 1
Brief Facts:
- There were 5 appeals in this case which were heard together, all relating to the payment of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”) for late delivery of vacant possession of condominiums.
- In the Sale and Purchase Agreements [“SPA”] signed by the purchasers of a condominium the period of delivery of vacant possession of the condominium was 54 months instead of the usual 36 months as prescribed in Schedule H of the Housing Development Regulations [“HDR”] pursuant to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 [“HDA”].
- This period of delivery was extended because the developer had obtained the extended period from the Controller of Housing pursuant to reg 11(3) of the HDR. And this extension was obtained before the SPA was signed.
- In a previous case of Ang Ming Lee the Federal Court had held reg 11(3) HDR was ultra vires the HDA. Meaning the reg 11(3) was invalid.
- The vacant possession was delivered beyond the 36 months period prescribed by law.
- But because they were delivered beyond the 36 months as it was supposed to be, the purchasers sued the developers for late delivery of vacant possession of the condominium.
- The extension of time to deliver vacant possession was obtained before signing the Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs), and the extended completion period of 54 months was clearly outlined in Clauses 25 and 27 of the SPA, as agreed by the parties.
THE DECISION OF FEDERAL COURT (FC)
- The FC ruled that applying the Ang Ming Lee case retrospectively would cause serious injustice and would have devastating effects on the housing industry, as it would give purchasers a ‘carte blanche’ to pursue financial gain against developers who had obtained a valid Extension of Time to deliver vacant possession at the material time i.e. before the Ang Ming Lee.
- The FC also determined that the developers, having complied with the law as it existed at the time, did not act to the purchasers’ detriment.
- Therefore, the claim by the purchasers failed.
Leave a Comment