Sure Commerce Sdn Bhd v Soon Chin Chye & 24 Lagi

p-04ncvcw-63-02-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 21 April 2025 • P-04(NCvC)(W)-63-02/2022 • 49 min read
28 cases cited (0 SG, 28 foreign)

Outcome

CONCLUSION [71] For the foregoing reasons, we unanimously allow Appeal 51 and dismiss Appeal 63. The Decision of the High Court is set aside save on the finding in respect of the GST payment and we reinstate the order of the Sessions Court. [72] The Developer shall pay costs to the Purchasers of RM 30,000.00 for Appeal 51 and RM 20,000.00 for Appeal 63 here and the High Court below subject to allocator.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (p-04ncvcw-63-02-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

The appeals involved late delivery of vacant possession of the Jazz Suites and claims for GST and late payment interest of the sales and purchases of the commercial accommodation suites. The key issue was whether the Purchasers could rely on Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA). The Court held that despite the land's commercial zoning, the Jazz Suites were for human habitation and fell under the HDA. Thus, Schedule H applied, and inconsistent terms in the sale agreements were void. The Purchasers’ appeals were allowed as the High Court had erred.

Practice Areas

Housing Development

Judges (3)

Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Lim Chong Fong Delivered Supang Lian Coram

Counsel (7)

Phee, Chen & Ung Firm Presgrave & Matthews Firm Daniel Khoo Kelvin Counsel Appellant Karin Lim Ai Ching Counsel Appellant Lim Hock Siang Counsel Appellant Ng Giap Seng Counsel Respondent Ung Chirt Kye Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Sure Commerce Sdn Bhd Appellant Soon Chin Chye Respondent

Summary

This is the developer's cross-appeal heard together with Appeal 51 concerning the Jazz Suites. Sure Commerce appealed the Sessions Court's award of LAD to the purchasers. The Court of Appeal dismissed the developer's appeal, affirming that the HDA applied to the commercial suites used for human habitation and awarding costs to the purchasers.

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (Cap 118)
Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Cap 177)
National Land Code (Cap 828)

Cases Cited (28)

MY (28)
[1982] 2 MLJ 031 [1982] CLJ 305 [1995] 3 MLJ 369 [1995] 3 MLJ 395 [1996] 3 AMR 3693 [1996] 4 CLJ 545 [1996] 4 CLJ 687 [2000] 4 CLJ 324 [2000] 4 MLJ 433 [2003] 2 CLJ 19 [2009] 6 CLJ 232 [2011] 2 MLJ 141 [2011] 7 MLRH 720 [2013] 9 MLJ 195 [2015] 2 AMR 601 [2015] 2 CLJ 252 [2015] 2 CLJ 453 [2015] 2 MLJ 441 [2016] 8 CLJ 221 [2018] 8 AMR 670 [2019] 2 CLJ 22 [2019] 3 MLJ 395 [2019] 8 AMR 297 [2019] 8 MLJ 194 [2020] 1 CLJ 162 [2020] 1 MLJ 281 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2023] 2 CLJ 333

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (p-04ncvcw-63-02-2022)