OIB PROPERTIES (PRV) SDN BHD v 1. ) SURAYA BINTI MOHAMAD NADZIR 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

Case Significance

A developer's certiorari challenge to a Homebuyer Claims Tribunal compensation award, rejected because the plan relied on showed only the property's shape, not its area, so no error was established.

This High Court decision concerns a substantive application for an order of certiorari to quash an award of the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal), the second respondent, made in favour of a house buyer, the first respondent. The applicant was the developer. Under the sale and purchase agreement, the buyer had purchased a property in a Sepang development, the agreement and the original title describing the land area as 435 square metres. The developer maintained that this was an error and that the correct area was 395 square metres as stated in the First Schedule to the agreement; it amended the stated area to 395 square metres, and the buyer signed the amended agreement. The buyer nonetheless claimed damages before the Tribunal for the loss of the area, compensation being calculated by the formula fixed under the sale and purchase agreement, and the Tribunal awarded the buyer RM17,200.00 with RM400.00 costs.

On judicial review, the Court set out the supervisory nature of the remedy: certiorari lies to ensure that a specialised consumer tribunal such as the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal, established to resolve disputes cheaply, accessibly and quickly, has not exceeded its jurisdiction, has followed proper procedure, and has reached a lawful, fair and reasonable decision. The developer's complaint was that the Tribunal had erred in law in allowing the buyer's claim.

Examining the material, the Court found that the developer's reliance on the plan in the First Schedule was misplaced: on inspection the plan depicted only the shape of the property, not its area, so it did not demonstrate that the 435-square-metre figure in the recitals was wrong or inconsistent. The developer had not established the error on which its challenge depended, and its reliance on the plan was without foundation. The judgment illustrates the limited grounds on which the High Court will disturb a Homebuyer Claims Tribunal award.