Judicial review requires careful examination of decision-making processes, emphasizing standards of legality, rationality, and procedural propriety.

A. Background Facts

[1] The present appeal before us is an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's Judicial Review Application against the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ("the 2nd Respondent / TTPR") to impose Late Payment Interest ("LPI") against one Teoh Kok Seng ("the appellant / Purchaser") for the delay in the disbursement of the Financier's Loan for the first progress billing issued by Heesland Sdn Bhd ("the 1st Respondent / Developer").

[2] It is the appellant's case that he had been unlawfully imposed the LPI for delays that he had no hand in at all. On the contrary, the 1st Respondent merely adopted a deflective stance (not against the appellant) but to blame the delay against the solicitors' firm, Messrs Ong and Partners who the 1st Respondent insisted were representing the Financier and not them, the Developer.

[3] For a better understanding of the matter at hand, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case that has led to the present appeal.

[4] The appellant had purchased a double-storey house from the Developer (1st Respondent). The firm of solicitors who were appointed and retained by the Developer to undertake the sale and purchase and loan application for the purchase is one Messrs Ong and Partners ("the Developer's Lawyers").

[5] The appellant had expeditiously signed the Sale and Purchase Agreement on 14 April 2017 ("the SPA"). The SPA was only later dated and stamped on 2 May 2017. By this juncture, the processing of the loan documentation and disbursement of the loan sum is by and large out of the appellant's hands and control.

[6] The appellant obtained a loan facility from RHB Bank ("the Financier") to partly finance the purchase. Accordingly, the Financier issued a Letter of Notification on 18 April 2017. Only after this Letter of Notification that the Developer's Lawyers began to prepare the Loan Documents on 2 May 2017.

[7] The Developer (the 1st Respondent) on the same day ie on 2 May 2017 had issued its Progress Billing for the disbursement of RM530,000.00 to the Financier, which allegedly falls due on 26 May 2017. The Progress Billing was issued to the Financier and was indicated to have been copied to the appellant. However, no proof of actual issuance or receipt of the same progress billing to the appellant were ever furnished by the 1st Respondent.

[8] In any case, the Developer's Lawyers had only 18 working days (between 2 May 2017 and 26 May 2017) to ensure that the Financier disburses the loan sum within the Developer's own set timeline. Unfortunately, the Developer's Lawyers had only submitted the loan documentation for execution to the Financier on 12 May 2017. Thus, there was already a gap of 10 days and now there is only 8 working days' period left for the Financier to process the loan documentation and disburse the loan within time.

[9] To no fault of the appellant, the Financier on 18 May 2017 had refused execution of the Loan Documentations for the reason that the Developer's Lawyers had given an 'expired' land search which had gone beyond one month in time. The Loan Documentations were returned unexecuted to the Developer's Lawyers on 24 May 2017. Only on the last date on 26 May 2017 did the Developer's Lawyers finally send the appropriate land search to the Financier.

[10] Considering it was already the last day for disbursement of the loan, it was patently obvious that disbursement of the loan certainly could not have been made within the time set by the Developer ie 26 May 2017 (although to no fault of the appellant at all).

[11] To