1. ) YEOH CHEONG YEOW 2. ) JIMMY ONG KIM HENG v GLOMAC SEGAR SDN BHD

Case Significance

Confirms, in a consolidated housing dispute, that a purchaser challenging a Ministry-approved extension of the Schedule H delivery period must proceed by the correct mode, and that such a challenge cannot be smuggled into a liquidated-damages suit disposed of on a point of law under Order 14A.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur is part of a consolidated determination, under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, of questions of law common to two suits by parcel purchasers against a housing developer, Glomac Segar Sdn Bhd, arising from delay in a development known as Plaza @ Kelana Jaya. In this consolidated suit the purchasers claimed liquidated ascertained damages totalling RM126,395.45 for the developer's delay in delivering vacant possession of their parcels and in completing the common facilities within the stipulated period. Because the dispute turned on discrete legal questions rather than contested facts, the court, on its own motion, directed that they be determined under Order 14A Rule 1, which permits a question of law or the construction of a document to be decided without a full trial where it is suitable for such determination and will finally dispose of the matter.

The purchasers' sale and purchase agreements were statutory contracts in the Schedule H form prescribed under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, under which vacant possession is to be delivered within 36 months. By a letter dated 29 June 2018 the Ministry had approved the developer's application to amend Schedule H, extending the delivery period from 36 to 48 months. In their statement of claim the purchasers pleaded that the 29 June 2018 letter was null and void and that the consequent amendments to clauses 25(1) and 29(1) of their agreements were of no legal effect. The court held that the claim was in substance a challenge to the legality of the extension of time and of the amended clauses, and that the purchasers had not adopted the correct mode of proceedings to advance such a challenge. Answering the questions of law on that footing, the court dismissed the purchasers' claim in this suit together with the companion suit.