Court ruled that liquidated damages claims are barred by the six-year limitation period, and extensions under Regulation 11(3) were invalid under Ang Ming Lee, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory timelines in housing contracts.

Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Regulation 11(3) declared ultra vires - Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) claims arising from delayed delivery of vacant possession - Developers' reliance on government extensions invalidated under Ang Ming Lee v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor [2020] 1 ML J 281 - Appeals dismissed; the claim was time-barred and without merit. (Paras 10, 15, 19, 56-60)

(B) Issues of Limitation - Claims must be filed within six years of the cause of action from SPA execution, with no effective extensions acknowledged post-Ang Ming Lee. (Paras 9, 18, 66-70)

(C) Role of Estoppel - Parties who benefited from extended agreements; holding them accountable is undermined by unfair reliance on invalid extensions. (Paras 173-176)

(D) Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - The judgment clarified that the decision did not apply retroactively, thus protecting developers' reliance on previously valid regulations. (Paras 137-161)

Facts of the case:
The cases involve multiple purchasers who executed Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) with developers. Extensions for delivery of vacant possession exceeded statutory timelines, which the High Court initially addressed but which were later deemed invalid post-Ang Ming Lee ruling.

Findings of Court:
The appeals were dismissed based on time-barring and because extensions could not validate the agreements' terms that were previously declared void.

Issues: Key questions addressed included the accrual of causes of action based on contractual terms and compliance with statutory requirements under the HDA.

Ratio Decidendi: The apex court reinforced that reliance on invalid extensions of time from Regulation 11(3) is impermissible, and claims for damages must adhere strictly to six-year limitation rules.

Result: Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. court hears multiple related appeals. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the appeals and projects involved. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. high court dismisses summary judgment application. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. high court findings regarding developer's obligations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court of appeal's analysis on time limitation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. court discusses enforceability of spa clauses. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
7. legal significance of the purchase agreement details. (Para 39 , 41 , 42 , 43)
8. legislative framework for housing development regulations. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
9. unjust enrichment principles discussed in housing context. (Para 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174)
10. court's final decision across all appeals. (Para 178)

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTINTRODUCTION

[1]There are five appeals which were heard together given the commonality of issues in the questions of law raised for our determination. One appeal was filed by the purchaser of the condominium units, The Sentral Residences. The other appeals are appeals filed by the developers of the projects, Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd (Prema) and Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd (Sri Damansara). The appeals were heard together despite there being different parties involved. We heard oral submissions by all learned counsels representing the respective parties and at the end of those submissions we indicated that we needed time to consider the respective submissions. We have now reached our decision and what follows below are our deliberations on the issues raised and our reasons as to why we have so decided.

[2]The central issue in all the appeals concerns the payment of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) as a result of this court’s decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 ML J 281(Ang Ming Lee) declaring that Regulation 11(3)ultra vires the parent Act.

APPEAL NO.: 02(i)-70-08/2022 (W) (Appeal No. 70) & 02(l)-71-08/2022 (W) (Appeal No. 71)

Obata- Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd (Obata) v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd (Prema)

[3]Both appeals have identical issues, with similar facts and arose from the same development project. Appeal No. 70 is an appeal by Obata against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal by Obata against the High Court’s decision which allowed Prema’s application under Order 14A Rules of Court 2012 (ROC)Court of Appeal’s decision which dismissed Obata’s application for Summary Judgment under Order 14 ROC 2012

[4]The Appellant, Obata is the purchaser and owner of a condominium known as The Sentral Residences (the Project). The Respondent, Prema is the developer of the Project. The Project comprises of 2 towers of service apartments and was governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) and the HDR. Thus, the agreement was to be executed with potential purchasers as prescribed under Schedule H of HDR whereby the time for delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities is 36 months.

[5]However, due to the magnitude and the peculiarity of the bespoke design of the Project, Prema applied for modification of the prescribed agreement to vary the prescribed completion period for the Project from thirty-six (36) months to fifty-four (54) months pursuant to Regulation 11(3)16.12.2010, two (2) years before the execution of the SPA with the purchasers of the Project. Prema obtained EOT to extend the time period for delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities from 36 months to 54 months. The amended approved provisions are as reflected in Clauses 25 and 27 of the sale and purchase agreements (SPA). It was only after procuring the approval of the EOT and the amended clauses in the SPA that Prema executed the SPAs with its purchasers.

[6]Obata entered into the SPAs with the approved EOT on various dates which formed the subject matter before the court, namely:

(i)SPA dated 24.7.2012 (Suit 301);

(ii)SPA dated 28.10.20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document