1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WONG SUET WAH DOROTHY 12. ) WONG SUK YEE JUDY 13. ) WONG YUET FONG 14. ) YAP SWEE BOON 15. ) KWAN WAI MUN (GUAN HUIMIN) 16. ) Yang Chek Lon 17. ) Lim Chee Ho 18. ) CHIN TUCK KEONG 19. ) TOH KIM LIAN 20. ) TOH AH MUI 21. ) TAY WEE SUM JOY 22. ) WANG ZILONG 23. ...

Case Significance

Illustrates the calculation of liquidated ascertained damages from the date of the booking fee in a private lease scheme that departed from the Schedule H standard form: following Obata-Ambak and Tropika, the court held the purchasers' LAD claim was not time-barred and awarded LAD to the vacant-possession notice plus fourteen days, with 5% interest and RM30,000 costs.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Elaine Yap Chin Gaik, concerns claims by a group of purchasers for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) for late delivery arising out of a private lease scheme in a special development zone. The plaintiffs, a group of purchasers, had bought properties under a private lease scheme and had originally sought both LAD and specific relief, namely the conversion of their leases into freehold title; the defendants were the developer, Distinctive Resources Sdn Bhd, and Iskandar Investment Berhad. The sale and purchase agreements deviated from the standard form of agreement in Schedule H of the housing-development regulations, and issues arose as to whether the purchasers' action was time-barred, whether the impugned clauses were valid, and whether the alleged illegality of the private lease scheme had been sufficiently pleaded. Following developments in the law and an out-of-court settlement between the plaintiffs and the second defendant, the matter narrowed to the quantum of the LAD claim.

The court held that the purchasers' action was not time-barred. It reasoned that their cause of action was not one to invalidate the impugned clauses of their respective sale and purchase agreements, so time did not run from the date of those agreements. Drawing on the recent appellate authorities Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd and Tropika Istimewa Development Sdn Bhd v Wong Hang Fah, the court held that the purchasers were entitled to recover LAD, computed according to the sums it quantified from the date of payment of the booking fee to the date of the vacant-possession notice plus fourteen days, with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement, and a global costs award of RM30,000, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates how the courts calculate LAD from the booking fee in the context of a non-standard private lease scheme, and their reluctance to treat such claims as time-barred.