The Tribunal's decision is upheld as rational, with no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness identified during proceedings.

Kamardin Hashim JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ('the learned JC') dated 27 December 2018 in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review. The appellant's application was for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah ('the Tribunal') made in favour of the 2nd respondent on 7 June 2018 ('the impugned Award'). The Tribunal had allowed the 2nd respondent's claim for damages for breach of the Sales and Purchase Agreement entered into between the appellant and the 2nd respondent on 23 August 2013. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned JC, the appellant appealed to this court.

[2] We heard the appeal on 11 December 2019. After due deliberation and having carefully considered the submissions of all parties, we unanimously found that there are no merits in the appeal. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with costs. These are our reasons in dismissing the appeal.

Background Facts

[3] The appellant is a licensed housing developer under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ('the Act'), and a developer for a project known as Country Garden Danga Bay ('the Project'). The 2nd respondent is one of the home buyers for one unit apartment of the Project. The 2nd respondent signed the Sale and Purchase Agreement on 23 August 2013 ('the original S&P') with the appellant to purchase a unit described as parcel Block 11-A-3402 on the 34th storey with a purchase price of RM1,639,861.00 ('the said unit'). The original S&P was subsequently dated on 30 December 2012. Delivery of vacant possession of the said unit within 36 months from the date of the original S&P, which is on or before the 22 August 2016.

[4] However, vacant possession was only handed over on 25 September 2017. The said unit, according to the 2nd respondent should have a covered balcony but when vacant possession been delivered, the balcony was not covered. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint to the appellant vide letter dated 4 December 2017. The 2nd respondent filed a claim with the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent claimed for RM50,000.00 as compensation for the wrong unit that was given to him.

[5] The Tribunal found in favour of the 2nd respondent and awarded damages in the sum of RM50,000.00, being the maximum award per cause of action which can be handed by the Tribunal.

[6] The appellant sought the following reliefs from the High court:

(a) that the appellant be granted leave to apply for an order for certiorari to quash the Johor Bahru Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims' Award dated 7 June 2018 in Claim No TTPRZS/J/0001(T)/18 ("Award");

(b) that an order for certiorari be granted by this Honourable court to quash the Award;

(c) that the enforcement of the Award be stayed pending the full and final disposal of this judicial review application before this Honourable court;

(d) that this Honourable court makes a finding that the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims' decision to grant the Award was tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety;

(e) the costs of and/or occasioned by this application be cost in the cause; and

(f) such further orders and/or other directions as may be given or made as this Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances.

[7] The grounds of the appellant in support of the judicial review as listed in the Statement to O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of 2012 are as follows:

(a) The grounds on which the reliefs set out in para 4 above sought by the applicant are set out in the Affidavit of Loh Yen Zin which is filed herein to support the Applicant's Application for Judicial Review. A summary of the grounds relied on by the applicant are set out below;

(b) The 1st respondent had erred in law and in fact when the 1st respondent awarded the sum claimed by the 2nd respondent without stating any reasons or supporting grounds in the Award;

(c) The 1st respondent had erred in law and in fact when the 1st responden