Invalid extensions of time for vacant possession under housing law cannot bind purchasers if they exceed statutory limits, leading to potential estoppel from claiming further damages.

Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 – Extension of time under reg 11(3) – Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the extension of time granted to the developer for delivery of vacant possession as exceeding prescribed 36 months – Court found the extension invalid aligning with Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee, emphasizing statutory compliance. (Paras 7, 26, 68)

(B) Estoppel – Plaintiffs previously accepted Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) settlements and were determined to be estopped from further claims for completion delays after signing settlement letters. (Paras 31, 66)

Facts of the case: Plaintiffs purchased properties at The Sentral Residence but challenged the developer's delay in vacant possession based on a supposed invalid extension of time.

Findings of Court: The court affirmed that the extension was invalid and that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of estoppel due to prior settlements.

Issues: Whether the extension of time granted was valid under the Housing Development regulations and the applicability of the estoppel doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that extensions not complying with statutory provisions are void, and acceptance of settlements acts as an estoppel against future claims relating to the same delay.

Result: Plaintiffs' suits dismissed with costs.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that challenges to EOT decisions by public authorities must be via judicial review; a writ action against the developer alone is improper. (!) (!) - Settlement letters can estop plaintiffs from pursuing LAD claims for delays, applying a form of estoppel to waive rights under the SPA, with analysis of whether settlements are regulated or full contracting out. (!) (!) (!) - The decision in Ang Ming Lee applies retrospectively, and the actions are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, with the court emphasizing strict adherence to statutory limitation periods. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the proper mode of challenging a housing EOT decision and whether a writ action is appropriate?

What is the effect of estoppel and settlement letters on LAD claims under Schedule H of the Housing Development regulations?

What is the impact of limitation and retrospective application of Ang Ming Lee on LAD claims and the enforceability of EOT-derived rights?

JUDGMENT

Mohd Firuz Jaffril J:

[1] The present matter before me deals with the following three cases:

(a) Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-301-06-2020 - Asmaziah binti Abu Bakar v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd ("Suit 301");
(b) Civil Suit No:: WA-22NCVC-303-06-2020 - Foong Chee Tek and Tan Wan Chen v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd ("Suit 303"); and
(c) Civil Suit No:: WA-22NCVC-305-06-2020 - Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd ("Suit 305").

[2] All three suits were filed on 18 June 2020. As the facts are similar in broad facts and arose from the same development project, I heard them together on 15 March 2021.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[3] The plaintiffs are purchasers to a development named The Sentral Residence located at the KL Sentral, Kuala Lumpur ("the development"). The defendant is the developer to the development.

[4] The plaintiffs have entered into sale and purchase agreements ("SPA") prescribed under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ("HDR") on various dates as follows:

(a) Suit 301 - SPA dated 24 July 2012;
(b) Suit 303 - SPA dated 28 October 2013; and
(c) Suit 305 - SPA dated 11 July 2012 and 18 July 2012.

[5] Vacant possession was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiffs on 25 January 2017 and that the common facilities were completed on 6 January 2017 (the date when the certificate of completion and compliance was issued).

[6] The plaintiffs in Suit 301 and Suit 305 have before the filing of the current action accepted from the defendant LAD in respect of the late delivery of vacant possession of parcel based on a calculation of 54 months from the date of the SPA:

(a) Suit 301 - RM7,443.29 and RM17,686.85 via two settlement letters dated 8 March 2017 and 14 June 2017; and
(b) Suit 305 - RM10,017.53 in respect of parcel A-31-F and RM16,891.51 in respect of parcel A-31-G via two settlement letters both dated 14 March 2017.

[7] It is the plaintiffs' case that in light of the Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals, 2019 MarsdenLR 2737 ("Ang Ming Lee"), the extension of time granted to the defendant vide a letter dated 16 December 2010 signed by one Khairul Azhar (Nik) bin Abu Bakar to hand over vacant possession of the parcels from 36 months as required in the prescribed Schedule H to 54 months as envisaged in the SPAs are invalid. It is also the plaintiffs' case that the calculation of the liquidated ascertained damages ("LAD") should be based on 36 months in the prescribed Schedule H instead of the 54 months stated in the SPA.

[8] Hence, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Satu deklarasi bahawa apa-apa surat yang diberikan untuk perlanjutan masa (jika ada) di bawah peraturan 11(3) Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Perlesenan) 1989 untuk Defendan untuk menyerahkan milikan kosong ("vacant possession") Hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintiff dan melengkapkan kemudahan bersama ("common facilities") dari tempoh masa tiga puluh enam (36) bulan ke lima puluh empat (54) bulan adalah tidak sah selaras dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals, 2019 MarsdenLR 2737
(b) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan adalah dikehendaki mematuhi dan terikat kepada Jadual H Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989 untuk menyerahkan milikan kosong ("vacant possession") Hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintiff dan melengkapkan kemudahan bersama ("common facilities") dalam tempoh masa tiga puluh enam (36) bulan dikira dari tarikh Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut ditandatangani;
(c) Satu perintah bahawa Defendan dikehendaki membayar kepada Plaintiff untuk ganti rugi tertentu untuk kelewatan penyerahan milikan kosong ("vacant possession") Hartanah tersebut dan pelengkapan kemudahan bersama ("common facilities") seperti berikut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 MarsdenLR 699

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUROBATA AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD – AppellantVersusPREMA BONANZA SDN BHD & OTHER CASES – Respondent[Suit Nos: WA-22NCVC-305-06/2020 WA-22NCVC-301-06/2020 & WA-22NCVC-303-06/2020]

Invalid extensions of time for vacant possession under housing law cannot bind purchasers if they exceed statutory limits, leading to potential estoppel from claiming further damages.

What is the proper mode of challenging a housing EOT decision and whether a writ action is appropriate?

What is the effect of estoppel and settlement letters on LAD claims under Schedule H of the Housing Development regulations?

What is the impact of limitation and retrospective application of Ang Ming Lee on LAD claims and the enforceability of EOT-derived rights?

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
OBATA AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD & OTHER CASES – Respondent
[Suit Nos: WA-22NCVC-305-06/2020 WA-22NCVC-301-06/2020 & WA-22NCVC-303-06/2020]