Leong Wai Hong JC:

JudgmentIntroduction

[1]“Kata itu kota” is a well-known peribahasa. It means that every promise made must be honoured. Its English equivalent is “A man’s word is his bond”.

[2]In the instant case before me, the plaintiff’s learned counsel Ravindran Shanmuganathan submits that there is a prevalence of developers riding roughshod over the Latin maxim Omnia promissa servanda, “All promises must be kept”.

[3]He urges me to hold the defendant developer in this case to its promise to the 46 house buyers here.

[4]Learned counsel for the defendants Justine Voon urges me not to be swayed by the emotive language of the plaintiffs’ counsel.

[5]Let me put Mr Voon’s fears to bed at the outset. The Court will always treat a developer and the property buyers fairly and squarely, without fear or favour.

[6]However, if a developer had contracted with the buyers to deliver a development with specific features, the court expects the developer to meet its bargain. Nothing more nothing less.

Background Facts

[7]This is a suit filed by 46 plaintiffs who are house buyers against Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd / the 1^st defendant (“D1”) who is the developer of a housing development known as Lakefront Villa @ Cyberjaya (“LFV Project”), Timeless Hectares Sdn Bhd / the 2^nd defendant (“D2”) who is the registered proprietor of the land used for the LFV Project and MCT Berhad/ the 3^rd defendant [“D3”].

[8]D1 and D2 are wholly owned subsidiaries of MCT Consortium Berhad (“MCT Consortium”) which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of D3. D3 is a public company listed on the Main Board of Bursa Malaysia.

[9]The suit is filed for breaches of a Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into between each of the 46 plaintiffs and D1 and D2 [“SPA or SPAs”] and for misrepresentations by D1, D2 and D3 in respect of the LFV Project.

[10]The SPAs are governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“HDA 1966”) except for the SPA of plaintiff No. 34 (“P34”), dated 07-08-2020, which is not governed by the HDA 1966.

[11]I heard the trial over 7 days on 10-01-2023, 11-01-2023, 13-01-2023, 25-04-2023, 19-05-2023, 26-05-2023 and 02-06-2023. Oral submissions by counsel were held before me on 08-08-2023 and 06-09-2023. I delivered decision with full grounds on 06-09-2023.

[12]During oral submissions counsel for the plaintiffs has informed me that the plaintiffs are dropping the relief in Re - Amended Statement of Claim [“Re - ASOC”] at paragraph 65[3]. The plaintiffs have also said the same in the Plaintiffs’ Written Submissions at paragraph 110.

[13]During oral submissions counsel for the plaintiffs has also informed me that if the court grants their prayer for a perpetual injunction in Re - ASOC at paragraph 65[4] their prayers for damages in paragraph 65[9] and paragraph 65[11] would be redundant. The plaintiffs have also said the same in the Plaintiffs’ Reply Written Submissions at paragraph 69.

[14]If references are made in this judgment to say “E129/5(A)” it refers to Enclosure 129, PDF page 5 (Bundle A).

The summary of the plaintiffs’ case [See Enclosure 30 / G 1]

[15]The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is in respect of the housing and / or residential development project known as the LFV Project developed on the piece of land held under HS(D) 35967 PT 49802 Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan measuring approximately 64,586 square meters (“Master Land”).

[16]Between 2014 and 2020, the plaintiffs purchased their respective parcels on the Master Land, pursuant to SPAs with D1 and D2. Contemporaneously with their respective SPAs, the plaintiffs also entered into a Deed of Mutual Covenants (“DMC or DMCs”) with D1.

[17]D1 is the developer of the LFV Project whilst D2 is the registered owner of the Master Land.

[18]D3 is a public listed company.

[19]D1, D2 and a company known as Modular Construction Technology Sdn Bhd (the main contractor for the LFV Project) are wholly owned subsidiaries of MCT Consortium which, in turn, is a wholl