Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2941
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: BA-25-60-08/2021]
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly confined to claims arising from the Sale and Purchase Agreement, excluding issues outside its terms.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 – Section 16N(2) – Judicial review against Tribunal’s award related to Sale and Purchase Agreement regarding property – The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to claims based on causes of action arising from the Sale and Purchase Agreement – Award of RM44,960 for relocating air-conditioning compressors upheld by High Court. (Paras 13-43)
(B) Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction confined to matters within the Sale and Purchase Agreement; claims outside this scope are not within its authority. (Paras 10-15)
(C) Procedural fairness – Court considers the irrationality and illegality of the Tribunal's decisions when assessing the judicial review application. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case: Application arose from a dispute between the vendor and purchasers concerning the location of air-conditioning compressors in relation to their property. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court: The court affirmed the Tribunal's award and its jurisdiction over the claim as it pertained to the Sale and Purchase Agreement. (Paras 46-47)
Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding issues outside the Sale and Purchase Agreement. (Paras 13-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly confined to the SPA, and any breach of its terms was actionable within that framework. (Paras 14-31)
Result: The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review against the award made by the first respondent, the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah. At the end of the hearing, this court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. This is the grounds of this court at coming to a decision.
Factual Background
Judicial Review No: BA-25-60-08/2021
[2] The applicant is the vendor and the second and third respondents are the purchasers of a property known as Unit No T1-25-07, Project: Lakefront Residence @ Cyberjaya under Title No H.S. (D) 35966, PT 49801, Mukim of Dengkil, District of Sepang, State of Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the Property").
[3] The applicant and the second and third respondents entered into Sale and Purchase agreement dated 13 February 2014 ('the SPA') for the Property.
[4] Pursuant to cl 25 (1) of the SPA the date of delivery of vacant possession of the Property by the applicant to the second and third respondents was 54 calendar months from the date of the SPA.
[5] The applicant subsequently delivered vacant possession of the Property to the second and third respondents and the second and third respondents accepted vacant possession of the Property on 15 November 2018.
[6] The second and third respondents subsequently initiated a claim before the first respondent on 28 August 2020, for the following:
"(i) the Applicant did not inform the Purchaser that the air-conditioning compressor would be located at the "yard" area (ie an open area near the kitchen) of the Property and that this location was not indicated on the SPA plan; and
(ii) the location of the air-conditioning compressors at the Property had allegedly caused:
(a) the area of the built-up main parcel had been reduced; and
(b) a number of issues (ie electrical, mechanical, noise, dripping water causing the floor to be wet and ventilation issues) have arisen at the Property;
(iii) by the same claim, the Purchaser made the following monetary claims from the Applicant:
(a) RM66,960.00 to move the air-conditioning compressor from the main parcel of the Property;
(b) further costs for making the claim of:
• transportation costs of RM100.00; and
• filing, communication and other miscellaneous costs of RM30.00."
[7] The first respondent awarded the second and third respondents the sum of RM44,960.00 as the cost of the relocating the air-conditioning compressors outside the Property.
[8] The applicant now seeks to squash the award of the first respondent.
Principles Relating To Judicial Review
[9] In relation to judicial review, authorities have laid out the principles by which an application for judicial review may be allowed. These grounds are:
(i) procedural impropriety pertaining to the decision making process;
(ii) illegality of the decision; and
(iii) irrationality of the decision.
[10] Specifically, in relation to the relief of certiorari the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680 cited in Husli Mok & Ors v. Probate Officer, Miri, [1996] 5 MLJ 420 and Petroliam Nasional Bhd v. Nik Ramli Nik Hassan; [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, expounded the principles relating to the grant of an order for certiorari.
[11] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to consider the application before this court.
Analysis
[12] The applicant submitted the award granted by the first respondent is irrational, inter alia, for the following reasons:
"(i) the First Respondent has erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the Purchaser to claim for liquidated damages which does not arise from the SPA; and
(ii) the First Respondent has erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the Purchaser to claim for liquidated damages based on any purported failure of the Applicant to "take into consideration the human factor that exist in the environmental issue and other relevant factor".
[13] The main ground before this court is whether the first respondent had jurisdiction to hear the claim by
