JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] Via this application for judicial review, the applicant applies to set aside an award dated 12 October 2023 granted by the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims ("Tribunal"). On 10 February 2025, I dismissed the judicial review application. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[2] The applicant is the developer of a housing development project known as 'Taman Kinding Perdana, Tanjung Rambutan, Ipoh, Perak Phase 1'.

[3] The 1st respondent is one of the home buyers of the aforementioned housing development project. On 25 October 2018, he signed a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") with the applicant to purchase a single storey terrace house at a purchase price of RM248,000.00 ("property").

[4] Under cl 24(1) of the SPA, the applicant must deliver vacant possession of the property to the 1st respondent within 24 months from the date of the SPA. To wit, on or before 24 October 2020. However, vacant possession of the property was only handed over to the 1st respondent on 7 February 2023.

[5] Consequently, the 1st respondent filed a claim with the Tribunal at Kepala Batas, Penang. He claimed liquidated damages ("LAD") in respect of 835 days of late delivery of vacant possession of the property, for the period from 25 October 2020 until 7 February 2023.

[6] In its defence, the applicant pleaded that it had already paid a sum of RM50,000.00 to the 1st respondent towards settlement of the LAD ("said payment"). Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent has signed a letter dated 15 February 2023 titled 'Akuan Penerimaan Milikan Kosong & Bayaran Sebanyak RM50,000.00 ("acknowledgment letter").

[7] The Tribunal found in favour of the 1st respondent and awarded him damages in the sum of RM50,000.00. The Tribunal made a finding that:

(a) the said payment of RM50,000.00 has no relevance to the LAD claim. As the said sum was an excess amount from a loan taken by the 1st respondent from LPPSA (Lembaga Pembiayaan Perumahan Sektor Awam);

(b) based on the evidence tendered before the Tribunal, there is no consensus ad idem between the parties with regard to any waiver or settlement of the LAD claim; and

(c) the acknowledgment letter does not prevent the 1st respondent from claiming LAD against the applicant.

[8] Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, the applicant filed this judicial review application for an order of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's award. The applicant put forward the following grounds:

(a) the Tribunal erred in law and in fact when it failed to consider the fact that a sum of RM50,000.00 was already paid to the 1st respondent as LAD; and

(b) the Tribunal erred in law and in fact when it failed to consider s 35(1)(b) of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19 Act 2020 ("Covid-19 Act"). Which provided an extension of time of 167 days for the delivery of vacant possession, for the period from 18 March 2020 to 31 August 2020.

The Law on Judicial Review

[9] Following the judgment of the Federal Court in R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor; [1996] 1 MLRA 725; [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 MLJ 145, it is accepted that in an application for judicial review, the decision of inferior tribunals may be reviewed for both process and substance on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality.

[10] The findings of a tribunal are amenable to judicial review where the facts do not support the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal. Or where the findings of the tribunal have been arrived at by taking into consideration irrelevant matters or by failing to take into consideration relevant matters. (See the Federal Court case of Ranjit Kaur S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd; [2012] 1 MELR 129; [2010] 6 MLJ 1; [2010] 8 CLJ 629; [2011] 3 AMR 38.

[11] In Ng Chang Seng v. Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2021] 1 MLRA 261; [2021] 1 MLJ 447 at pp 458–462; [2021] 1 CLJ 365; [2021]