SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2159

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SOON CHIN CHYE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SURE COMMERCE SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: P-04(NCVC)(W)-51-02/2022 & P-04(NCVC)(W)-63-02/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Ung Chirt Kye,Ng Giap Seng ,Respondent Advocate: Karin Lim Ai Ching,Lim Hock Siang,Daniel Khoo Kelvin

The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 applies to developments intended for human habitation, regardless of their commercial designation, entitling Purchasers to protections under the Act.

Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Interpretation and applicability - Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 - Liquidated damages for late possession - Appellants argued Developer failed to deliver possession within agreed terms and imposed GST incorrectly. The Sessions Court ruled in favor of Purchasers concerning late possession and GST refund, but the High Court partially overturned this. (Paras 18, 23, 31, 32, 42, 48)

(B) The significance of statutory interpretation of housing accommodation in commercial developments, establishing that such developments can still fall under the HDA 1966.

(C) The principle of sufficient proof regarding contractual obligations, particularly concerning indemnification clauses for statutory changes. (Paras 12, 34, 48)

Facts of the case:
The disputes arose from late delivery of vacant possession of commercial accommodation suites, with 19 Purchasers alleging non-compliance by the Developer. The Developer sought to charge GST and additional fees, which the Purchasers contested based on statutory provisions and the terms of sale agreements. (Paras 2-11, 18-20)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Jazz Suites constituted housing accommodation under the HDA 1966, and thus, the Developer was not entitled to claim GST or impose liquidated damages that conflicted with statutory provisions. (Paras 42, 46, 48, 70)

Issues: Whether the HDA 1966 was applicable to the sale agreements, entitlement to GST refunds, and validity of settlement agreements entered into by the parties. (Paras 18, 35, 42, 66)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Developer's reliance on commercial classification does not negate the classification of suites for human habitation and that the terms of Sale and Purchase Agreements limiting Purchasers' rights contravened statutory protections. (Paras 24-30, 42, 46, 70)

Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's decision was set aside except regarding GST payment. The Developer must pay costs to the Purchasers. (Paras 71, 72)

Table of Content
1. introduction of appeals regarding late possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. purchasers' claims and developer's counterclaims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
3. court reviews previous judgments. (Para 28 , 29)
4. debate over applicability of hda 1966. (Para 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. suites deemed housing accommodation under hda. (Para 41 , 42)
6. discussion on gst payments. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 56)
7. claims for service charges and sinking funds. (Para 61 , 62)
8. settlement agreements and their legality. (Para 65 , 66 , 67)
9. conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 71)
Lim Chong Fong JCA:

Introduction

[1] These appeals concern the late delivery of vacant possession of commercial accommodation suites, along with claims for indemnification related to the Goods and Services Tax ("GST") and late payment interest arising from the sales and purchases of those commercial accommodation suites.

[2] The Appellants in appeal No P-04(NCVC)(W)-51-02/2022 ("Appeal 51") and Respondents in appeal No P-04(NCVC)(W)-63-02/2022 ("Appeal 63") were the plaintiffs in the Sessions Court and respondents in the High Court. They are individuals and the purchasers of the commercial accommodation suites in issue.

[3] The Respondent in Appeal 51 and Appellant in Appeal 63 was the defendant in the Sessions Court and the appellant in the High Court. It is a private limited company that developed and sold the commercial accommodation suites in issue.

[4] For convenience, we will hereinafter refer to them as the Purchasers and the Developer, respectively.

[5] We heard the appeals on 13 January 2025 and thereafter adjourned the same to deliberate on rival contentions advanced before us.

[6] Now having duly done so, we furnish below our decision together with the supporting grounds thereof.

Background

[7] The Developer initiated a commercial development comprising a hotel known as the Jazz Hotel and commercial suites known as the Jazz Suites in Tanjung Tokong, Penang (collectively, the "Jazz Project"). The master land title for the Jazz Project states as follows:

"Tanah yang diberimilik ini hendaklah digunakan untuk tujuan perniagaan sahaja."

[8] Furthermore, the planning permission and building plans of the Jazz Project applied for by the Developer and approved by the Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang, were premised on a commercial development.

[9] Subsequently, the 19 Purchasers and the Developer respectively entered into a bespoke Sale and Purchase Agreements ("SPAs") and Deeds of Mutual Covenants ("DMCs") in respect of the sale and purchase of suites in the Jazz Suites. Seventeen (17) SPAs and DMCs were executed in August 2012, and the remaining two (2) were executed in 2013.

[10] The SPA provides, inter alia, the following express terms:

"Preamble

4. The Vendor intend to develop the said Land as a Commercial Lots, Commercial Suites, Hotel and /or other type of development as the Vendor shall deem proper (hereinafter referred to as "the Jazz")...as may be approved by the Relevant Authority.

5. The Vendor is developing part of the Jazz into Commercial Suites (hereinafterreferred to as "Jazz Suites")..."

[11] Furthermore, the DMC provides, inter alia, the following express term:

"By a sale and purchase agreement of even date made between the vendor or the one part and the purchaser on the other part the vendor sold and the purchaser purchased all that parcel of commercial space at Jazz Suites which is more particularly described in s 3 of the First Schedule hereto upon the terms and conditions stated in the Sale and Purchase Agreement. "

[12] According to the SPA, the time for delivery of vacant possession of the Jazz Suites and completion of common facilities for the Purchasers comprising of the Appellants (other than the 23rd and 24th Appellants) in Appeal 51 and Respondents (other than the 23rd and 24th Respondents) in Appeal 63 is 36 months from completion of piling works as certified by the architect of the Jazz Project.

[13] However, in the case of the Purchasers comprising

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top