1. ) HO KOK FAI 2. ) CHONG SIOW HUI 3. ) MAK YIP JUN 4. ) MAK YIP HON 5. ) WONG WEI WEI 6. ) ANG SIANGSWIN 7. ) OOI TIAN GUAN 8. ) YAP YI JIE 9. ) LIM BOON KIAT 10. ) THEO JWEE CHIN 11. ) SURESH A/L GNASEGARAH 12. ) NGAN CHUN MENG 13. ) MOHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN PASRO RADZI 14. ) LEONG SOON YOOU 15. ) HOR SOO SEAN 16. ) CHONG CHEE MENG 17. ) LAU YOKE LING 18. ) CHOE KAH TUCK 19. ) TAN SOOK MUN 20. ) NGAN CHING VOON 21. ) SOO WAN RU 22. ) NGAN KAI MENG 23. ) LIEW SOOI WEI 24. ) KEE WAE LENG 25. ) L...

Case Significance

Illustrates the use of Order 14A to dispose of housing liquidated-damages claims on a point of law, holding that a challenge to a Ministry-approved extension of the Schedule H delivery period must be brought by the correct mode of proceedings.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur determines, under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, questions of law arising in consolidated suits by purchasers against a housing developer, Glomac Segar Sdn Bhd, over a mixed development known as Plaza @ Kelana Jaya. The purchasers' principal claim was for liquidated ascertained damages for the developer's delay in delivering vacant possession of their parcels and in completing the common facilities within the stipulated period, the total sums claimed running to over RM2 million in the lead suit and a smaller sum in the consolidated suit. Because the outcome turned on discrete legal questions rather than disputed facts, the court, on its own motion, directed that they be determined under Order 14A Rule 1, which allows a question of law or construction of documents to be decided without a full trial where it will finally dispose of the matter.

The sale and purchase agreements were statutory contracts in the Schedule H form prescribed under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and its regulations, under which vacant possession is to be delivered within 36 months. The Ministry, however, had by a letter dated 29 June 2018 approved the developer's application to amend Schedule H, extending the delivery period from 36 to 48 months. The purchasers had pleaded that the 29 June 2018 letter was null and void and that the resulting amendments to clauses 25(1) and 29(1) of the sale and purchase agreements were of no legal effect. The court held that the claim was, in substance, a challenge to the legality of those amended clauses and to the extension of time, and that the purchasers had not used the correct mode of proceedings to mount that challenge. Answering the questions of law accordingly, the court dismissed the purchasers' claims in both suits.