1. ) Marcus Lee Wyy Keat 2. ) WONG KHANG SHYAN 3. ) CHUA YAY LIM 4. ) HANG SIEW LI 5. ) TAN WEI CIAN 6. ) OOI BEE HONG 7. ) SITI ZILBIA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 8. ) NG WEN DEE 9. ) ANSARUL IQMAL BIN ROSLAN 10. ) RATHIKA A/P PRAMMY SAMY @ PALANISAMY 11. ) AHMAD ZAMRI BIN YAAKOB 12. ) CHENG SHEK SIONG 13. ) TOK SOK KHING 14. ) CHONG KAH YEE 15. ) LIM EE ZINN 16. ) LEE SI CHING 17. ) QUAH AI TING 18. ) RAMESH VARAN A/L JAYAPRATHAPAN 19. ) YIM SEE YEE 20. ) LAU KAH WAI 21. ) RAHKEE CHEAH A/P S THINAKAR...

Case Significance

Holds that statements of future intention in a developer's conceptual plans are not actionable representations of present fact, so purchasers cannot found a misrepresentation claim on expected amenities; the purchasers' obligations and remedies are confined to the sale and purchase agreements, and the claims were dismissed with costs.

This High Court decision concerns a claim by a large group of purchasers of units in a development known as Eclipse Residence, part of the wider Pan'gaea Development, who alleged that they had been induced to buy by misrepresentations about nearby amenities. The plaintiffs are natural persons and are referred to here by their procedural roles; the defendant is the developer. The purchasers said they had expected that buying units adjoining or near a shopping complex and hotel would confer an immediate or automatic entitlement to those amenities.

The court rejected that case on a careful application of the law of misrepresentation. On an objective assessment, the amenities "formed part of the broader conceptual plans for the Pan'gaea Development", and "such plans, without more, constitute statements of future intention rather than binding promises or representations of present fact." Citing IJM Construction Sdn Bhd v Lingkaran Luar Butterworth (Penang) Sdn Bhd and Chia Tien Foh v Lo Man Heng, the court reaffirmed that "an expression of future [intention] cannot amount to a representation of fact." There was accordingly "no representation amounting to a promise" that the hotel, shopping complex or central park would exist at the time of purchase or be delivered contemporaneously with Eclipse Residence, which was only one phase of a development envisaged to be integrated over time.

The court further held that the contractual relationship was governed by the respective sale and purchase agreements, which "confined the Defendant's obligations to the units as advertised and represented." There was no complaint about the units themselves, and the plaintiffs had abandoned their claims of defects, so their case rested solely on alleged misrepresentations extraneous to the contractual bargain. Finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the plaintiffs had "failed to establish the existence of any false or actionable representation capable of founding inducement", the court dismissed the claims in their entirety. Reflecting a protracted trial of eleven days and sixty-four witnesses, it ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant total costs of RM320,000.

The judgment is a valuable statement that statements of future intention in a developer's conceptual plans are not actionable representations of present fact, and that a purchaser's remedy is confined to the obligations the sale and purchase agreement actually undertakes.