Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1797
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CHONG YUONG WEE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN.... – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-561-11/2022]
The court upheld the Minister's decision to grant an exemption for delivery of vacant possession under COVID-19 measures, affirming the legality and rationality of the decision-making process.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 – Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020 (Act 829) – Section 38C – Judicial review application dismissed – Applicants sought to quash the Minister's decision granting exemption for delivery of vacant possession due to COVID-19 – Court found no breach of law or procedural impropriety in the Minister's decision-making process – The exemption was deemed valid and within the Minister's powers. (Paras 14, 42, 74.1, 74.2)
Facts of the case: The Applicants, purchasers of strata parcels in Senada Kiara, challenged the Minister's decision to grant a 214-day exemption for delivery of vacant possession due to COVID-19 restrictions, claiming it was invalid and ultra vires the law.
Findings of Court: The court found that the Minister acted within his powers and considered relevant factors in granting the exemption, which was necessary due to the pandemic's impact on the construction industry.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Minister had the authority to grant the exemption after the expiry of the delivery period and whether the Applicants were entitled to a right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Minister's decision was rational and lawful, emphasizing that the exemption was a temporary relief measure in response to the pandemic's effects on the housing sector.
Result: Application for judicial review dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Applicants filed an application for judicial review (Encl 10) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).
[2] Leave was granted to the Applicants for application for judicial review against the Respondents to seek the following reliefs:-
2.1 Satu perintah certiorari bagi membatalkan kelulusan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan melalui surat bertarikh 26 April 2022 yang ditandatangani oleh Dato' N. Jayaselan yang mengecualikan tempoh selama 214 hari bagi pengiraan masa serahan milikan kosong dan penyiapan kemudahan bersama Perjanjian Jual Beli yang ditandatangani oleh Pembeli-Pembeli projek pemajuan perumahan Senada Kiara dengan pemaju, Sime Darby Brunfield Resort Sdn Bhd;
2.2 Satu deklarasi bahawa kelulusan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan melalui surat bertarikh 26 April 2022 yang ditandatangani oleh Dato' N. Jayaselan yang mengecualikan tempoh selama 214 hari bagi pengiraan masa serahan milikan kosong dan penyiapan kemudahan bersama Penjanjian Jual Beli yang ditandatangani oleh Pembeii-Pembeli projek pemajuan perumahan Senada Kiara dengan pemaju, Sime Darby Brunsfield Resort Sdn Bhd, adalah tidak sah dan melampaui bidangkuasa yang diperuntukkan di bawah Akta Langkah-Langkah Sementara Bagi Mengurangkan Kesan Penyakit Koronavirus 2019 (Covid-19), 2020 (Akta 829).
2.3 Satu deklarasi bahawa s 38C Akta Langkah-Langkah Sementara Bagi Mengurangkan Kesan Penyakit Koronavirus 2019 (Covid-19), 2020 (Akta 829) adalah ultra vires Perlembagaan Persekutuan;
2.4 Kos permohonan ini; dan
2.5 Lain-lain perintah atau relif yang difikirkan sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah Mulia ini.
[3] In essence, this application for judicial review seeks, among others reliefs, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister (1st Respondent) in granting the Sime Darby Brunsfield Resort Sdn Bhd (Developer) (3rd Respondent) the 3rd exemption of 214 days for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 under s 38C of the Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) (Amendment) Act 2022 (Act A1641) wherein the said 214 days in that period would be excluded in the calculation of the time period for delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities.
[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicants' judicial review application (Encl 10). The grounds for my decision appear below.
Background Facts
[5] The background facts gathered from the cause papers and submissions by the parties are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:-
5.1 The Applicants are purchasers of strata parcels in a residential development known as "Senada Kiara";
5.2 The 1st Respondent is the Minister in charge of matters concerning housing developments in the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) and the Regulations whereas the 2nd Respondent is the Ketua Pengarah of the Jabatan Perumahan Negara in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Ministry of Local Government Development);
5.3 The 3rd Respondent is the developer of Senada Kiara. It is a licensed housing developer under the HDA;
5.4 The 3rd Respondent entered into various sale and purchase agreements (SPA(s)) to sell units in Senada Kiara. The Applicants are purchasers who have entered into SPAs with the 3rd Respondent;
5.5 The SPAs are agreements executed pursuant to Schedule H read with reg 11(1) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (HDR);
5.6 Clauses 25(1) and 29(1) of the SPAs provide for a time period of 48 months to deliver vacant possession and complete the common facilities.
5.7 There were three (3) EOTs pertaining to Senada Kiara, however, the first two (2) EOTs providing a total of 289 days of exclusion (from 18 March 2020 until 31 August 2020 and 1 September 2020 to 31 December 2020) do not form part of the subject matter in this underlying judicial review application;
5.8 The EOT granted and which forms part of the subject matter in this judicial review
