News about Federal Court

The two NGOs seeking the judicial review claimed that it was illegal for the Selangor government to backdate a gazette, saying the degazettement decision was made on Nov 20, 2000, while the gazette was published on May 5, 2022.

At one time, the development sector found itself navigating through turbulent waters amid a dramatic surge in legal cases with estimated claims of a whopping RM48,819 million with respect to the EOT granted between 2016 to 2020.

Ranjan Chandran, a consultant at Messrs Hakem Arabi & Associates: “The ruling on limitation from the date of execution of the SPA does not seem fair to homebuyers [if a] housing development project had not taken off after the SPA is signed and if there [is] a breach that can be ascertained when vacant possession is only been given.

Senior lawyer Leonard Yeoh said that the decision ensures that nobody takes advantage of the law to the detriment of another.

What now for homebuyers? Homebuyers can be rest assured that their right to claim for damages for late delivery of vacant possession remains unchanged.

REHDA Malaysia president Datuk Ho Hon Sang: “We would also like to reiterate that we are not in favour of unnecessary extension of time unless for very valid reasons, developers must honour the terms in the contracted sales to deliver within the time allowed by the law.

Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim said said homebuyers cannot rely on the Ang Ming Lee decision as a "carte blanche" in order to make financial gain against developers who had obtained EOT prior to that landmark decision.

The unanimous decision was made by a three-member apex court bench led by Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusoff, who also ordered MBPJ to pay RM100,000 costs to the RA identified as Lim Keng Jit who represented the Parkville RA in Sunway Damansara.

The Parkville RA filed the judicial review through its chairman, seeking a declaration that the RA is entitled to impose a rule that non-paying owners and residents or non-members of the association in the residential area would operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of the security guards.

The Federal Court decisively held that Section 16M of the HDA refers to “a claim”, and not to “all the claims” in respect of the monetary limit, and therefore, each split claim before the Tribunal should be assessed separately and distinctly from each other.