1. ) STEFANIE JEAN YII 2. ) LIM KA YI 3. ) GENEVIE WAN ANYIE 4. ) NGAN SIN YEE 5. ) SIVARAMAN A/L MANIAM 6. ) ANURATHA A/P LETCHIMANIAM 7. ) WONG BOON PIN 8. ) CHAM CHEN LEA 9. ) CHIA HENG KIANG 10. ) SEAH LEE FONG 11. ) KAW HENG KEE @ LAW HENG KEE 12. ) MOK EE ANN 13. ) CHIA CHIN HOW 14. ) CHIA ZHENG LUN 15. ) CHIA LEE KIAU 16. ) TEOH KIM HAN 17. ) CHANG KAH MUN 18. ) LIM KIAN HSIA 19. ) NG KIAN KIM 20. ) CHONG CHA WEI 21. ) SEOK KAR YEAI 22. ) LEE CHUN YI 23. ) LEE KAE YIN 24. ) HO PUI YEE ...

Case Significance

Dismisses a judicial review by house purchasers of ministerial exemptions granting a 654-day extension for delivery of vacant possession under the Covid-19 temporary measures legislation, finding no illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness in the exercise of the power under sections 35 and 38C.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application for judicial review by a group of house purchasers challenging exemptions granted under the temporary Covid-19 measures legislation, which had extended the time for the delivery of vacant possession under their sale and purchase agreements. The exemptions were said to have been granted under section 35 of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 (Act 829) and section 38C introduced by the 2022 amendment (Act A1641), together with the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and were challenged under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The impugned decisions were the Minister's decisions and letters dated 3 March 2021, 4 October 2021 and 11 October 2022, signed by the Director General of the National Housing Department, granting an exemption of 654 days for the computation of time for the delivery of vacant possession under sale and purchase agreements between a developer and the purchasers of a housing project.

The purchasers' challenge required the court to consider whether the Minister had correctly allowed the exemptions under sections 35 and 38C of the Covid-19 measures legislation, and the extent to which such an exemption, which reduced the period counting towards late-delivery liability, could properly be granted.

In its conclusion the court found no illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness that would move it to allow the application for judicial review, and the application was accordingly dismissed. In reaching that conclusion the court had regard to authority on the right to be heard, including a passage to the effect that a decision made without affording the affected purchasers a right to be heard could be null and void, read in the light of the majority's observations in the Federal Court's decision in Maria Chin. Costs were ordered against the purchasers in favour of the respondents. The judgment illustrates the judicial review of ministerial exemptions granted under the Covid-19 temporary measures legislation extending the time for delivery of vacant possession, and the application of the standard grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.