1. ) CHONG NGIT SOOI 2. ) HO PEAK HWA 3. ) YEE CHUNG TUCK 4. ) YEE YING YING 5. ) TAY JEAN SEAN 6. ) TAY CHOON HOW 7. ) PANG JIAN YONG 8. ) PANG TSE FUI 9. ) TAN HOON THEAN 10. ) TAN NING PEI 11. ) SOW TIAP 12. ) TAN NING XIN v KAISAR MAXIM SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Illustrates the effect of an extension of time granted by the housing authority on a purchaser's statutory claim for liquidated ascertained damages under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, in light of the Federal Court's decision in Obata-Ambak, and the proper use of the summary-disposal procedures under Orders 14 and 14A of the Rules of Court 2012.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal by a group of house purchasers against a Sessions Court decision that had dismissed their claim at the threshold. The purchasers had claimed liquidated ascertained damages against the developer for late delivery under the statutory sale and purchase agreement in Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989. The developer had obtained an extension of time from the housing authority, and had persuaded the Sessions Court to dispose of the purchasers' claim summarily under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis of that extension. The appeal turned on the legal effect of the extension of time and on the application of the Federal Court's decision in Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd, which addressed the validity of such administrative extensions, and on whether the purchasers had a sustainable statutory claim under Schedule H. The court held that the Sessions Court had misdirected itself in law in allowing the developer's Order 14A application and dismissing the purchasers' claim at the threshold stage. It allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and dismissed the developer's Order 14A application; and, going further, it allowed the purchasers' own application under Order 14 and entered summary judgment in their favour as prayed. It fixed costs of the appeal at RM5,000. The court's approach shows that a purchaser's statutory entitlement to liquidated damages under the prescribed contract is not to be extinguished summarily on the strength of an administrative extension whose validity is itself in question, and that a threshold disposal under Order 14A is inappropriate where the very point of law relied on has been decided the other way by the Federal Court. The judgment is a useful illustration of the effect of an extension of time granted by the housing authority on a purchaser's statutory claim for liquidated damages under Schedule H, in light of the Federal Court's decision in Obata-Ambak, and of the proper use of the summary-disposal procedures under Orders 14 and 14A.