The power to waive or modify statutory contract terms cannot be delegated, as it undermines the legislative intention of protecting purchasers' rights.

[1] There were six related appeals before us which were heard together. Four (4) appeals were filed by the purchasers of individual condominium units in Sri Istana Condominium ("the project"). The other two appeals were filed by the developer of the project, BHL Construction Sdn Bhd. The issue in these appeals concerns reg 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ("the Regulations").

Background Facts

[2] By a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3 May 2012 ("the SPA"), entered into between the developer and the purchasers, it was agreed that the delivery of vacant possession of the units shall be 36 months from the date of signing of the respective SPAs. The SPAs were made pursuant to the statutorily prescribed form under Schedule H of the Regulations. Subparagraph 25(2) of Schedule H provides that if the developer fails to deliver vacant possession within 36 months, the developer shall be liable to pay the purchaser liquidated damages ("LAD").

[3] Vide a letter dated 20 October 2014, the developer applied for an extension of time for the delivery of vacant possession of the units to the purchasers. The application for the extension of time was made to the Controller of Housing ("the Controller"), pursuant to reg 11(3) of the Regulations, which reads:

"(3) Where the Controller is satisfied that owing to special circumstances or hardship or necessity compliance with any of the provisions in the contract of sale is impracticable or unnecessary, he may, by a certificate in writing, waive or modify such provisions:

Provided that no such waiver or modification shall be approved if such application is made after the expiry of the time stipulated for the handing over of vacant possession under the contract of sale or after the validity of any extension of time, if any, granted by the Controller."

[4] Briefly, the reasons relied upon by the developer in support of its application for extension of time were:

(i) non-stop complaints by nearby residents due to extended working hours;

(ii) stop work orders issued by the local authorities; and

(iii) investigation conducted on the piling contractor.

[5] By a letter dated 24 October 2014, the Controller rejected the developer's application for extension of time.

[6] Dissatisfied with the decision of the Controller, the developer, vide a letter dated 28 October 2014, appealed to the Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government ("the Minister"). The appeal was made pursuant to reg 12 of the Regulations which provides:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these Regulations, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Controller... may within fourteen (14) days after been notified of the decision of the Controller, appeal against such decision to the Minister; and the decision of the Minister made thereon shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court."

[7] The developer's appeal for the extension of time was purportedly allowed by the Minister. By a letter dated 17 November 2015, the Minister purported to grant an extension of twelve (12) months to the developer. The developer thus had 48 months to deliver vacant possession of the condominium units to the purchasers instead of the statutorily prescribed period of 36 months. As a result of the extension of time, the purchasers were unable to claim for the LAD as provided for in the SPAs.

[8] Aggrieved by the decision of the Minister in granting the extension of time, the purchasers filed an application for judicial review against the Minister; th