The Minister has the power to extend time for completion under the Housing Development Act, independent of the Controller's regulations, affirming the decision's legality and dismissing claims of procedural impropriety.

JUDGMENT

Lee Sweng Seng JCA:

[1] The nub of the complaint of the Purchasers by way of a challenge by judicial review ("JR") is directed against the decision of the Minister to grant a second extension of time of 17 months (from 42 months to 59 months) for the Developer to complete the units in the service apartments of a housing development ("the Units").

[2] There was a first extension not by the Minister but by the Controller of Housing ("Controller") for 6 months from contractual period of 36 months from the date of signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") to 42 months. However, this was not the subject of the challenge by the JR application.

[3] There are altogether 2 sets of appeals being heard together and they are set out below in the ascending order of their appeal number. The first set consisting of three appeals are by the Developer against three clusters of cases represented by the name of the first Purchaser in Civil Appeals:

(i) B-01(A)-55-01/2020 Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v. Kong Thye & 184 Ors;

(ii) B-01(A)-56-01/2020 Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v. Chan Chew Mun & 25 Ors; and

(iii) B-01(A)-57-01/2020 Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v. Alvin Leong Wai Kuan & 14 Ors

[4] The second set of appeals consisting of another three appeals are by the Minister and the Controller against the same three clusters of Purchasers represented by the name of the first Purchaser in the following Civil Appeals:

(i) B-01(A)-62-01/2020 Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor v. Kong Thye & 184 Ors & Anor;

(ii) B-01(A)-63-01/2020 Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor v. Alvin Leong Wai Kuan & 14 Ors & Anor; and

(iii) B-01(A)-64-01/2020 Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor v. Chan Chew Mun & 25 Ors & Anor

[5] The Developer, Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd ("Developer") was the 3rd respondent below in the High Court. The Minister was the 1st respondent and the Controller, appointed under s 4 of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ("HDA"), as the 2nd respondent in the High Court below. The three clusters of Purchasers who sued for the late delivery ("LAD") claims were the applicants in the High Court below.

[6] The housing Project consists of 3 Blocks of Service Apartments Pangsapuri Servis from 19th to the 26 floors (376 Units) with 8 storeys of car parks and a kindergarten, swimming pool, gymnasium and a place for recreation besides a guardhouse and a TNB substation in the Mines Resort City, Seri Kembangan, Mukim Petaling Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the "Project").

In The High Court

[7] The High Court had allowed the JR applications of the three clusters of Purchasers with respect to the second extension of time decided by the Minister based on its understanding of the binding effect of the Federal Court's case of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals, 2019 MarsdenLR 2737 that reg 11(3) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 ("HDR") is ultra vires the HDA.

[8] The High Court also proceeded to invalidate the first extension of time decision by the Controller even though there was no challenge in the said decision by way of the JR application with no reference to it whatsoever in the O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of the 2012 ("ROC") Statement.

[9] In the upshot, the High Court granted a declaration that the Purchasers are entitled to their LAD claims based on the 36-month time period under Schedule H of the HDR.

In The Court Of Appeal

[10] In the Court of Appeal, the lead counsel for the Developer was Mr Lim Chee Wee and the Senior Federal Counsel ("SFC") Mr Liew Horng Bin appeared for the Minister and the Controller. Mr G T Fernandez led the submissions of the Purchasers with the other counsel for the Purchasers adopting his submissions.

[11] It was argued, chiefly by the SFC for the Minister and the Controller,