1. ) AUDI BIN SYA RIZAL 2. ) SITI SHAHADA BINTI OSMAN 3. ) WAN MOHD AIZAT BIN WAN KAMARUDDIN 4. ) MOHAMMAD AZWAN BIN SAHRUDIN 5. ) NUR IZYANI BINTI AHMAD 6. ) MOHAMAD AIZUDDIN BIN OTHMAN 7. ) NURUL ASIKIN BINTI ABU BAKAR HAMZAH 8. ) TEW CHEE SENG 9. ) MOHD AZUAN BIN OTHMAN 10. ) NUR SYARINI BINTI SAHIMI 11. ) HAZRUL IRWAN BIN HASSAN NAZRI 12. ) NOOROHA BINTI BUANG 13. ) MAU'IZAH HASANAH BINTI HUSNI 14. ) MOHD KHAIRUL ADNE BIN MAT HUSSIN 15. ) SITI ZASALINA BINTI ABDUL HAMID 16. ) WAN IKBAL IS...

Case Significance

Applies the Federal Court's prospective-effect ruling in Obata to distinguish Ang Ming Lee where a developer's extension of time was approved before the sale and purchase agreements and without post-contractual variation, holding that purchasers cannot claim unjust enrichment where the developer complied with the law at the relevant time.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns cross-applications under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 in a claim by a group of house purchasers against the developer of a housing project known as Serene Heights. The purchasers had entered into their respective statutory sale and purchase agreements in Schedule G form between 2017 and 2018 and sought protection under the housing development legislation, their claim engaging the question of the developer's liability arising from an extension of time to deliver vacant possession. The central legal issue was the effect of the Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee, concerning the validity of a ministerially granted extension of time, and whether that decision applied prospectively, as the Federal Court had held in Obata. The Court allowed the developer's Order 14A application, with costs, and dismissed the purchasers' application. It found that the letter of approval relied on by the developer had been secured before the sale and purchase agreements were executed, so that the facts differed from those in Ang Ming Lee, where the difficulty had arisen from a post-contractual variation; here there was no such variation. The Court further noted that the relevant water authority had supported the approval granted by the Ministry and that the developer had complied with the procedure prevailing at the time. Applying Obata, it held that the purchasers could not be unjustly enriched where the developer had evidently complied with the law at the relevant time and had not acted unconscionably to their detriment, referring to the Federal Court's treatment of unjust enrichment in Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd. The Court thus treated the timing of the ministerial approval as decisive: because the extension of time predated the sale and purchase agreements and involved no post-contractual variation, the purchasers had contracted on the footing of an approval already in place and could not later disavow it to found a claim for liquidated damages. The purchasers' application was accordingly dismissed and the developer's allowed.