The tribunal for homebuyer claims possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against unlicensed housing developers, interpreting statutes based on legislative intent to protect homebuyers' interests.

[1] This was an application brought under O 53 of the Rules of the High 1980 ('RHC 1980') to quash the award or decision of the President of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims (tribunal) dated 19 December 2011. At the tribunal proceedings, the applicants were the respondents cited in a claim filed by Mohd Fauzi b Abdul Latif and Zainab bt Ismail in respect of or arising from a 'sale and purchase agreement' dated 17 August 2004 (the SPA).

[2] The first applicant was a party to the SPA and was referred in the SPA as 'the contractor'. The second applicant was also a party to SPA and referred to there as 'the vendor'.

For convenience, both the applicants will be collectively referred to in this grounds of decision as 'the contractor/the vendor'.

[3] Mohd Fauzi b Abdul Latif and Zainab bt Ismail were in the SPA jointly referred as 'the purchaser' and that description will be adopted to refer to them in this grounds of decision.

[4] The heading of the SPA was in the following terms: SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (LAND AND BUILDING). It could be surmised from even a cursory perusal of the contents of the SPA that the pith and substance of the SPA was the sale, construction and disposal jointly by the contractor/the vendor of a completed bungalow on subdivided plot No. 95 on titled land HS (M) 410 PT 543, Mukim Jawi District of Pokok Sena, Kedah (the bungalow). The total 'build-up' area of the bungalow as per the drawings attached to the SPA was to be 1,322 sq ft.

[5] The tribunal had allowed the purchaser's claim for late delivery of the completed bungalow and in computing the sum awarded to the purchaser, the tribunal had also set off the counter-claim filed by the contractor/the vendor to recover the agreed interest accrued on late settlement of progress payments by the purchaser.

[6] There were twenty one other similar applications for judicial review of the tribunal's decision which had been filed by the contractor/the vendor (as set out in the schedule to this grounds of decision). They were in respect of identical sale and purchase agreements entered into with other purchasers of similar to be built properties in what had been described as 'Taman Bunga Sena' within a project further described as 'Pusat Komersial Pokok Sena', Alor Setar, Kedah (see exh. LCS5 (Lampiran T) in encl 2 and exhs. MFAL3 and MFAL4 in encl 8).

The respective purchasers pursuant to the said 21 other sale and purchase agreements had similarly filed claims against the contractor/the vendor and the tribunal had dealt with them together and allowed those claims as per the terms of the one award of tribunal issued for all those case. The calculation of the amounts due (after set off for counter-claim) in each case was separately derived and ordered by the tribunal to be paid by the contractor/the vendor.

[7] As the principal issues raised in all the judicial review applications by the contractor/the vendor were similar, by agreement of all parties, this instant application was prosecuted as the main or test-case and it was agreed that the outcome here would be accepted and be applicable in respect of the other 21 cases as well.

The Complaint Of The Contractor/The Vendor

[8] The contractor/the vendor's attack against the tribunal's award were essentially two-pronged.

The principle contention w