JUDGMENT

Avinder Singh Gill Ranjit Singh JC:

Introduction

[1] The appeals in WA-12ANCVC-14-02/2025 and WA-12ANCVC-15-02/2025 concern the interpretation and application of the Water Services Industry (Sewerage Capital Contribution Fund) Regulations 2011 ('2011 Regulations'); the issue of limitation under the Limitation Act 1953, and the suitability of Summary Determination under O 14A of the Rules of (RC) 2012.

[2] The appellant in both appeals was the defendant in the Court below.

[3] The parties will be referred to here as they were in the Sessions Court .

[4] The Defendant's Application to Strike Out the Writ and Statement of Claim (Encl 10), and the Plaintiff's Application under O 14A (Encl 12) were heard together, and the Sessions Court delivered a single decision as seen from the grounds of judgment in both Appeals.

The Plaintiff's Application Was Made Under Order 14A And Order 33 Rule 5 Of The RC 2012: Enclosure 12.

[5] This Application is the substance of Appeal No 14 by the defendant.

[6] The dispute arose from the defendant's mixed development project. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had declared lower selling prices for unsold units and misclassified six units as sold when they were not, resulting in an under-declaration of the required 1% contribution.

[7] The plaintiff applied to determine the following questions:

a. Question 1: Based on the 2011 Regulations, whether the "selling price" of each unit for the purposes of determining and calculating the amount of contribution payable towards the Sewerage Capital Contribution Fund (SCCF) is based on the facts and circumstances (ie, sale status) as at the Notice Submission Date; and

b. Question 2: Based on the Water Services Industry Act (WSIA) 2006 and the 2011 Regulations, whether the plaintiff is only entitled to impose and collect the SCCF contribution at the rate of 1% of the actual selling price; and whether any contribution paid in respect of unsold units based on the Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT) price is only interim pending the sale of those units?

The Defendant's Application Under Order 14A And Order 18 Rule 19 Of The RC 2012: Enclosure 10

[8] This Application by the Defendant was to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim on the premise that the plaintiff's Suit was barred by limitation as the defendant contended that the plaintiff's claim for underpayment to the SCCF was made more than 6 years by the time the Suit was filed, explicitly stating that the delay was 6 years, 8 months and 15 days after the last date of the defendant's SCCF contribution on 7 November 2017.

[9] This Application is the substance of Appeal No 15 by the defendant.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[10] The plaintiff, a statutory body under the National Water Services Commission Act 2006, claimed that the defendant, a property developer, had under-declared and underpaid the SCCF by RM660,639.70 for a mixed development project.

[11] The payment was required under s 172(2) of the WSIA 2006 and the 2011 Regulations, calculated at 1% of the sale price of each unit.

[12] The plaintiff had claimed that the amount of payment of the 1% depended on the following matters:

a. For the sold units: the operative figure would be the sale price in the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA); and

b. For the unsold units: the sale price would be as submitted to the KPKT for the advertising and sales permit pursuant to Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989.

c. The payments for both the sold and unsold units were to be made in one lump sum within 30 days before the application for final inspection was submitted to Indah Water Konsortium (IWK).

[13] The Defendant had made an application for final inspection to IWK on 29 November 2017. Based on this, the plaintiff contended that the final date for the lump sum payment for both sold and unsold units was therefore 29 November 2017. On 16 November 2017, the defendant declared that the contribution was RM7,558,185.30 and had paid th