1. ) BALBEER SINGH A/L SWARAN SINGH 2. ) USHA DEVI A/P TARA SINGH 3. ) NG SOK HUN 4. ) LIM PEAK BOOM 5. ) TAN CHEE SEN 6. ) WONG LEE CHOO 7. ) WONG KWOK CHEW 8. ) TAN KHOO KIM LOOI 9. ) ANDY HONG CHING HUAT 10. ) YEO CHEW LIN 11. ) TANG GUAN EN 12. ) TAN SIEW KEE 13. ) TEH HING KOON 14. ) ONG NGIAM YEE SING 15. ) WONG SIEW CHIENG 16. ) WONG SIOW WEN 17. ) PANG WOO 18. ) HO LEE HWA 19. ) HOO SUEK MUI @ HOE SUEK MUI 20. ) LEE LEE KIM 21. ) LAW PEI EN 22. ) ONG KIM PIN 23. ) ONG WEI BOON 24. ) O...

Case Significance

Illustrates how a court disentangles overlapping heads of damage in a housing-development claim, awarding liquidated damages for late vacant possession and percentage-based damages for brochure misrepresentation, while refusing to compensate the same underlying loss twice.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru arose from a claim by a large group of house purchasers against the developer of their project. The purchasers complained of misrepresentation in the sales brochure, in particular that a Roof Top Garden and other common facilities depicted in the brochure were not completed as promised, together with late delivery of vacant possession, electricity that was not ready for connection, and a swimming pool that could not be tested for safe use. After a full trial the court found the developer liable and made a series of awards. For the misrepresentation concerning the brochure, it awarded damages at the rate of 10 per cent of the purchase price. For late delivery of vacant possession, it awarded liquidated ascertained damages to the first up to the thirty-ninth plaintiff, calculated to 13 September 2016 in the sums tabulated in the amended statement of claim. Both categories of award carried interest at 5 per cent from 13 September 2016 until realisation, with costs of RM50,000 to the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the purchasers' remaining heads of claim. It held that the delayed availability of the swimming pool, which had been constructed but whose safety testing was held up, did not sound in separate damages because the underlying cause of the delay was the supply of electricity, a matter already accounted for in the liquidated damages for late vacant possession; and the complaint about the late Roof Top Garden had already been taken into account in fixing the misrepresentation award. The court's approach shows a careful attention to avoiding double recovery, tracing each complaint back to the head of loss under which it had already been, or should be, compensated. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a court disentangles overlapping heads of damage in a housing-development claim, awarding liquidated damages for late possession and percentage-based damages for brochure misrepresentation while refusing to compensate the same underlying loss twice.