ROZEL CORPORATION SDN. BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur
Catchwords
(a) the Respondent’s decision is ultra vires when it was wrongly decided that the setback for the Applicant’s building is not necessary; (b) the Respondent failed to consider – (i) that the Applicant’s building is beside the road and it is not safe for their employees, customers and visitors; (ii) that the Applicant will be held responsible for failing to provide a safe place to work and safe place for business by not providing a setback for the building; (iii) the fact that the road was extended up to the boundary of the Applicant’s building where the Applicant had to move the building to ensure that the premises are safe for its customers and employees; (iv) the provision of Acts such as occupier's liabilities or the tort of negligence under tort law and/ or the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 when the Applicant’s building is beside the road without a setback of 10 feet as required under the Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (‘DBKL’) Guidelines; and (v) that the acquisition of part of the Land pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b) of the LAA 1960 was in fact for the benefit of PISB where the selling price of the units at Pavillion Embassy ranges from RM2.5 million to RM20 million each; and (c) the Respondent failed to compensate for – (i) the demolition and re-construction of the building after the setback of the building as provided in the DBKL’s Guidelines, including loss of business during the construction works; (ii) concrete works, road premix and floor finishing constructed by the Applicant for the parking space on the land acquired; and (iii) the loss of parking space for the Applicant’s business located on part of the Land which was acquired for the remaining period of the tenancy.
Practice Areas
(a) the Respondent’s decision is ultra vires when it was wrongly decided that the setback for the Applicant’s building is not necessary; (b) the Respondent failed to consider – (i) that the Applicant’s building is beside the road and it is not safe for their employees, customers and visitors; (ii) that the Applicant will be held responsible for failing to provide a safe place to work and safe place for business by not providing a setback for the building; (iii) the fact that the road was extended up to the boundary of the Applicant’s building where the Applicant had to move the building to ensure that the premises are safe for its customers and employees; (iv) the provision of Acts such as occupier's liabilities or the tort of negligence under tort law and/ or the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 when the Applicant’s building is beside the road without a setback of 10 feet as required under the Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (‘DBKL’) Guidelines; and (v) that the acquisition of part of the Land pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b) of the LAA 1960 was in fact for the benefit of PISB where the selling price of the units at Pavillion Embassy ranges from RM2.5 million to RM20 million each; and (c) the Respondent failed to compensate for – (i) the demolition and re-construction of the building after the setback of the building as provided in the DBKL’s Guidelines, including loss of business during the construction works; (ii) concrete works, road premix and floor finishing constructed by the Applicant for the parking space on the land acquired; and (iii) the loss of parking space for the Applicant’s business located on part of the Land which was acquired for the remaining period of the tenancy.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
ROZEL CORPORATION SDN. BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 6, 2025 (citation: wa-15-18-08-2022). The case was decided by Aliza binti Sulaiman.
Key issues: (a) the Respondent’s decision is ultra vires when it was wrongly decided that the setback for the Applicant’s building is not necessary;.
What was the outcome of ROZEL CORPORATION SDN. BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur?
ROZEL CORPORATION SDN. BHD v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur is a High Court decision dated March 6, 2025. The case was heard by Aliza binti Sulaiman. See the full judgment for details.