Icon City Development Sdn. Bhd. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI SIERRA PENINSULAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) v 1. ) Philip Anthony a/l M Irdiahsamy 2. ) Annie a/p Joseph 3. ) Tan Kai Boon 4. ) Soo Huey Chiun 5. ) Lee Gim Hee 6. ) Tan Chin Poh 7. ) Lai Wai Mun 8. ) Kong Moi Cheng 9. ) Chew Swee Hoe 10. ) Chaw Lai Kit 11. ) Kong Kah Wai 12. ) Hiew Chee Faun 13. ) Yip Wai Teng 14. ) Wong Huey Shyan 15. ) Loh Wing Yew

Case Significance

Reinforces that the computation of the LAD period for late delivery of vacant possession under the standard sale and purchase agreement is controlled by binding Court of Appeal authority, and a first-appellate court applies that settled interpretation under stare decisis to a group of purchasers' claims.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal by a developer against an award of liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) to a group of purchasers for the late delivery of vacant possession, and it is governed by binding appellate authority on the same contractual provisions. A group of fifteen purchasers had succeeded before the Sessions Court, after a full trial, in their LAD claims against the appellant developer. The developer appealed to the High Court. The contest concerned the interpretation of clause 35A and section 10 of Schedule A of the statutory sale and purchase agreement — specifically the point from which the 42-month period for computing LAD begins to run — together with the deeming provision by which a purchaser is treated as having taken delivery of vacant possession upon expiry of the relevant period after a vacant-possession notice.

The court held that the disputed question of law had already been settled by the Court of Appeal in similar cases, and that it was bound by those decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. It declined to depart from the established interpretation of the LAD provisions. Applying the deeming provision (clause 13.2.2 of the agreement), it accepted that the purchasers were deemed to have taken delivery of vacant possession upon the expiry of the fourteen-day period from the dates stated in the vacant-possession notices, and it found that the Sessions Court Judge had not misdirected herself and had sufficiently evaluated the evidence.

The court upheld and affirmed the Sessions Court's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000 to the respondents, subject to allocator. The judgment reinforces that the computation of the LAD period under the standard sale and purchase agreement is controlled by binding Court of Appeal authority, so that a first-appellate court applies that settled interpretation to a group of purchasers' claims rather than re-opening the question.