Mohamed Noor, Amran & Yoon

On the court record

A property- and land-centred practice extending into government-contract litigation, engaging the Housing Development Act regime, the caveat provisions of the National Land Code, and unjust-enrichment claims against public authorities.

Mohamed Noor, Amran & Yoon is recorded in the corpus across property, land and government-contract litigation. In a High Court matter the firm acted for the developer defendant in a housing claim brought by a large group of purchasers of units at a Petaling Jaya development, where the dispute concerned an extension of the delivery period from thirty-six to forty-eight months and the developer's liability for ganti rugi tertentu (liquidated ascertained damages) for late delivery of vacant possession and common facilities. The judgment engaged the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and its regulations, including Schedule H, and the appellate authority of the Federal Court decisions in Ang Ming Lee and Obata-Ambak on the validity of any administrative extension of time. A second matter, also in the High Court, concerned a kaveat persendirian (private caveat): the firm acted for the plaintiff seeking to remove a caveat so that property could be sold, against a defendant who had lodged a claim to harta sepencarian (jointly acquired matrimonial property) said to arise during a polygamous marriage, the question being whether the caveator had a caveatable interest and a serious issue to be tried under sections 323 and 327 of the National Land Code. On the appellate side the firm appeared for the respondent in a Court of Appeal matter arising from a solid-waste concession, where a contractor's original arrangement with a city authority had been novated to a concessionaire and the court examined privity of contract, a claim in unjust enrichment and quantum meruit under section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 against a non-contracting government party, and an allegation of misfeasance in public office. The record shows a firm equipped for housing-development disputes, land-caveat work and public-law contract litigation alike. In the caveat matter the court had to weigh whether the lodged interest crossed the threshold of a serious question to be tried, while the concession appeal turned on whether the Government could be reached at all given the intervening novation to the concessionaire.