1. ) Chia Kim Hoong 2. ) Puvaneswary a/p Raja Gopal 3. ) Jayraj a/l Thanapalu 4. ) Hema Nathan a/l Raja Gopal 5. ) Marzuk bin Hashim 6. ) Ruhaiza Azereen binti Abdul Rani 7. ) Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Rahman v Eco Green City Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates the boundary between summary determination under Order 14A and a full trial in a housing-defects claim, and that purchasers must pursue their remedies within the monetary jurisdiction and the contractual preconditions of the statutory-form sale and purchase agreement rather than through a multiplicity of suits.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an appeal from the Sessions Court against the summary disposal of a suit by house purchasers against their developer. The appellants had bought units in a terraced-housing project and sued the developer, Eco Green City Sdn Bhd, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied terms, negligent misrepresentation and breach of statutory duty in respect of defects and delay, their sale and purchase agreements being in the statutory form under Schedule G of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance had been issued and vacant possession delivered, and the agreements provided a 24-month defect liability period with prescribed remedies. On the developer's application the Sessions Court, proceeding under Order 14A and Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012, disposed of the matter without a full trial, finding the claims frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and outside its monetary jurisdiction.

On appeal, the questions included whether the issues were suitable for summary determination under Order 14A, whether material facts were in dispute, whether purchasers of only a few units had locus standi to challenge the Form G7 and the Certificate of Completion and Compliance issued for the entire development, and whether the claim exceeded the Sessions Court's monetary jurisdiction under section 65(1)(b) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. The court distinguished the tests for striking out under Order 18 rule 19 from those for determination under Order 14A, and considered whether the pleaded grievances were properly cast.

The court held that the purchasers' complaints about defects and performance remained grievances of fact to be pursued in the proper forum, in accordance with the monetary limits and the contractual preconditions in their agreements, and that the courts would not permit attempts to circumvent orders, statutory regimes or contractual preconditions through a multiplicity of suits in an unsuitable forum. It dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the Sessions Court's order. The judgment illustrates the boundary between summary determination and a full trial in a housing-defects dispute.