1. ) Ho Yui Luen v Agile PJD Development Sdn Bhd (WA-22C-10-01/2022)

HO YUI LUEN (Singapore Passport No.: K2176067K)

HO SHUANG LI (United States of America Passport No.: 565447900) …PLAINTIFFS DAN AGILE PJD DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No.: 1076335-K) …DEFENDANT JUDGEMENT (Enclosure 1) Background Facts [1] This is an unfortunate case of a family who are American-Singaporean expatriates who had intended to set up home in Malaysia via the programme known as Malaysia My Second Home also known as MM2H promoted by the Malaysian Tourism Authority and the Immigration Department of Malaysia, to allow foreigners to stay in Malaysia. Through no fault of their own, this family were put through amongst others much hassle and inconvenience as a result of a luxurious condominium they had purchased which they had intended to call their home in Malaysia. [2] The Plaintiffs herein, who are husband and wife had purchased the said luxurious condo which is known as Agile Mont Kiara project (“Project”) from the Defendant, Agile PJD Development Sdn Bhd, who is the developer of the Project. [3] The Plaintiffs states that on 27.11.2016, the Plaintiffs had allegedly authorized their attorney to remit a deposit payment of RM10,000.00 via cheque to the Defendant to secure Unit D-07-01 of the Project (“Parcel”). [4] Thereafter, the facts show that on 21.12.2016, the Plaintiffs made the first payment of RM53,256.00 and executed a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") to purchase the Parcel for the total purchase price of RM2,662,800.00. [5] Under the terms of the SPA, liquidated ascertained damages ("LAD") are payable at 10% of the purchase price, amounting to RM729.54 per day for any delay. [6] After a wait of four-years being on 24.12.2020, the Defendant was informed by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant was prepared to deliver VP to the Plaintiffs, attaching the Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession dated 25.12.2020. This is an agreed fact between the parties. [7] On 29.12.2020, the Plaintiffs responded to the Defendant acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession, and thereafter on 08.01.2021, the Plaintiffs further informed the Defendant that they had paid the sum of RM508,295.69, as well-paid management fees of RM6,199.06 and deposited the amount of RM133,140.00 with PW Tan & Associates, the solicitors who prepared the SPA. [8] Subsequently, the Plaintiffs took the keys to the Parcel and conducted an inspection of the Parcel on 04.02.2021. It was then that the Plaintiffs alleged that they discovered that the Parcel was full of severe defects rendering it unfit for occupation. [9] Amongst the defects which were discovered by the Plaintiffs were that the Parcel exhibited water leakages, structural wall cracks, and incomplete finishes due to poor workmanship and inadequate waterproofing. [10] As a result of the same, the Plaintiffs were unable to move into the Parcel on 04.02.2021 and the Plaintiffs had submitted the initial defect forms to the Defendant, requesting rectification of the defects. [11] The Defendant thereafter carried out rectifications in the Parcel as well as over the rooftop of the Parcel, including hacking, applying cement, installing the torch membrane and re-flooring to fix the defects on no less than 3 occasions since the defect recurred. Throughout this period, it is alleged by the Plaintiffs that the said Parcel remained unfit for occupation due to the ongoing rectification works. [12] The Plaintiff then states that as time progressed, the Plaintiffs continued to file additional defect forms, and rectification works have been ongoing throughout this period, up to the present date. [13] The Plaintiff then alleges that on the belief that the Defendant was close to rectifying the defects and to mitigate their losses, the Plaintiffs moved into the Parcel on 06.11.2021. [14] The Plaintiff submits that the defects remained unresolved and, in some instances, recurred and that they have continued to experience significant problems, including persistent water leakages and structural cracks, which have further impacted their ability to enjoy the Parcel. [15] The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant’s promotion of the Project as a luxury condominium created a legitimate expectation that the Parcel would meet standards commensurate with such classification. [16] Thus, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant also ought to have exercised reasonable care and skill in the construction and design of the Parcel and ensuring that the contractors execute the works in a good and workmanlike manner. [17] The Plaintiff therefore states that the SPA ought to be interpreted to incorporate the following implied terms: -

The Parcel will be constructed and completed to a high standard that is commensurate with and/or compatible for a luxury condominium before vacant possession is given;

The Defendant shall ensure that the final result of the Parcel accords with the Fourth Schedule of the SPA by using good materials and workmanship in constructing the Parcel that is safe and fit to be occupied;

The Defendant shall ensure that the Parcel is safe and fit for occupation before applying for and/or obtaining the Completion and Compliance Certificate (“CCC”);

The Defendant shall ensure that the Parcel is safe and fit to be occupied before handing over the keys for vacant possession of the Parcel; and

The Defendant shall ensure that the CCC which certified that the Parcel is safe and fit for occupation is truly in accordance and/or reflective of the actual condition of the Parcel The Defence [18] The Defendant has pleaded as its defence amongst others that:

18.1 the Defendant has delivered VP Notice to the Plaintiff together with amongst others, CCC certifying that the Parcel is safe and fit to be occupied;

18.2 the Defendant has duly complied with clause 27 of the SPA and the Plaintiffs acknowledged receipt of the VP Notice on 29.12.2020. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have taken possession of the Parcel on or around 29.12.2020;

18.3 the Plaintiffs did not, at any material time, challenge the validity of the CCC or the manner of the delivery of the vacant possession;

18.4 in these circumstances, there is no basis for the Plaintiffs to seek for a declaration that the vacant possession has not been delivered to the Plaintiffs via the VP Notice and claim for LAD from the period from 27.11.2020 to 6.11.2020;

18.5 the Plaintiffs are only entitled to claim for 5 days of delay in delivering the vacant possession from 21.12.2020 until 8 25.12.2020 amounting to RM3,647.67 (RM729.53 x 5 days) as LAD pursuant to Clause 25(1) of the SPA;

18.6 the Plaintiff is only entitled to vacant possession within 48 months from the date of the SPA (i.e. on or before 21.12.2020), therefore, there is no basis for the Plaintiff to claim for special damages from 27.11.2020 to 21.12.2020 for the pre-contractual delivery of vacant possession or for special damages for the period between 22.12.2020 and 29.12.2020 for the contractual delivery of vacant possession until actual delivery of vacant possession as claiming for special damages for this period would amount to an unjust enrichment;

18.7 there is also no basis for the Plaintiffs to claim for special damages for rental and furniture storage for the period between 30.12.2020 and 6.11.2021;

18.8 the alleged defects were minor defects and the Plaintiffs chose not to move in to the Parcel even after they have collected the keys on 4.2.2021; 9 18.9 the Plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against the Defendant under the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 (SMA) in this proceeding and had not pleaded which section of the SMA the Defendant has breached. Court’s Analysis & Findings [19] I will now specify for the ease of convenience the clauses in the SPA which I find will be relevant in determining this Court’s decision for this matter. [20] The said clauses in the SPA are as follows: - “Clause 9 -Time of essence of the contract “Clause 14 - Materials and workmanship to conform to description “14. (1) The said Parcel together with all the common facilities, which shall form part of the common property, shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with the description set out in the Fourth Schedule and in accordance with the plans approved by the Appropriate Authority as in the Second Schedule, which descriptions and plans have been accepted and consented by the Purchaser, as the Purchaser hereby acknowledges...” “Clause 23 - Compliance with Written Laws “Clause 25 – Time for delivery of vacant possession

(1) Vacant possession of the said Parcel shall be delivered to the Purchaser in the manner stipulated in clause 27 within forty-eight (48) months from the date of this Agreement.” “Clause 27 – Manner of delivery of vacant possession “27. (1) The Developer shall let the Purchaser into possession of the said Parcel upon the following:

the issuance of a certificate of completion and compliance;

the separate strata title relating to the said Parcel has been issued by the

water and electricity supply are ready for connection to the said Parcel;

the Purchaser having paid all monies payable under subclause 5(1) in accordance with the Third Schedule and all other monies due under this Agreement and the Purchaser having performed and observed all the terms and covenants on his part under this Agreement; and

the completion of any alteration or additional work under subclause 15(2), if any.

The delivery of vacant possession by the Developer shall be supported by a certificate of completion and compliance and includes the handing over of the keys of the Parcel to the Purchaser.

Upon the expiry of thirty (30) days from the date of service of a notice form the Developer requesting the Purchaser to take possession of the said Parcel, whether or not the Purchaser has actually entered into possession or occupation of the said Parcel, the Purchaser shall be deemed to have taken delivery of vacant possession.” “Defect liability period

(1) Any defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Parcel or the said Building or the common property which becomes apparent within twenty-four (24) months after the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel and which are due to defective workmanship or materials or; the said Parcel or the said Building or the said common property not having been constructed in accordance with the plans and descriptions as specified in the First and Fourth Schedules as approved or amended by the Appropriate Authority, shall be repaired and made good by the Developer at its own cost and expense within thirty (30) days of the Developer having received written notice thereof from the Purchaser.” [21] As a matter of law, it is trite that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are bound by the express terms contained in the SPA which SPA shall conform to the statutory Schedule H sale and purchase agreement under the Housing and Developers Act (“HDA”). [22] I was however referred to and wish to refer to the case of Dua Residency Management Corporation v Edisi Utama Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2021] MLJU 140 where His Lordship Lim Chong Fong (now Judge of the Court of Appeal) held: “[91] Furthermore, the Plaintiff relied on three-fold implied terms expounded in the 1966 English Court of Appeal case of Hancock and Others v B W Brazier (Anerley) Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 901 (CA), in which the plaintiff, the purchaser of a house built by the defendants, sued for damages for breach of contract in failing to erect and complete the house purchased in a proper and workmanlike manner after the purchaser’s house suffered from substantial damage due to the usage of unsuitable materials during its construction. Lord Denning held that apart from the express clauses contained within the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the sale and purchase of the house, the defendant builders were also bound by a threefold implication in law: “It is quite clear from Lawrence v Cassel (1) and Miller v Cannon Hill Estates, Ltd

(2), that when a purchaser buys a house from a builder who contracts to build it, there is a threefold implication: that the builder will do his work in a good and workmanlike manner; that he will supply good and proper materials; and that it will be reasonably fit for human habitation. Sometimes this implication, or some part of it, may be excluded by an express provision, as for instance in Lynch v Thorne (3). The specification there expressly provided that the walls were to be nine-inch brick walls. The work was done with good materials and workmanship and exactly in accordance with the specification; but the walls did not keep out the driving rain. The builder was held not liable. The question in this case is whether the threefold implication is excluded by cl. 9. I think that it is not, for this simple reason: cl. 9 deals only with workmanship. It does not deal with materials. The quality of materials is left to be implied; and the necessary implication is that they should be good and suitable for the work. I am quite clear that it is implied in the contract that the hardcore must be good and proper hardcore, in the same way as the bricks must be good and proper bricks. I know that the builders were not at fault themselves. Nevertheless, this is a contract: it was their responsibility to see that good and proper hardcore was put in. As it was not put in, they are in breach of their contract. If it is any consolation to them, they can try and get hold of their suppliers and sue them if they can prove it against them; but they have to take responsibility so far as the purchasers are concerned.” (emphasis added) This three-fold implied terms principle has been accepted in the Malaysian cases of Teh Khem On & Anor v Yeoh & Wu Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 663 as well as Komala Devi M Perumal v Bandar Eco-Setia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2016] 1 LNS 1053.” [23] With respect, after reading the aforesaid case of Dua Residency Management Corporation (supra) I too do subscribe and hold that the three-fold implied terms principle of as mentioned in the cases above i.e. the builder will do his work in a good and workmanlike manner; that he will supply good and proper materials; and that it will be reasonably fit for human habitation are to be necessarily implied in within the SPA entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the sale and purchase of the said Parcel. [24] I am also guided by the case of Lee Shy Tsong & Ors v. Amprojek Construction Sdn Bhd [2018] CLJU 2088 which had emphasized that implied terms are critical in ensuring the SPA fulfils its statutory intent, particularly in protecting homebuyers as the weaker party in the transaction. [25] Another case which I wish to quote and which I am persuaded by in coming to my decision is Hariram a/l Jayaram & Ors v Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd [2003] 1 MLJ 22 is that both the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Housing Developement (Control and Licensing) Regulations (“HDR”) are social legislations designed to protect purchasers. Numerous cases such as Foong Seong Equipment Sdn Bhd (receivers and managers appointed) v Keris Properties (PK) Sdn Bhd (No 1) [2009] 5 MLJ 381, and Loh Tina & Ors v Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2020] 6 MLJ 191, both Court of Appeal decisions as well as the Federal Court decisions in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd V Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 441 and Remeggious Krishnan v SKS Southern Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Mb Builders Sdn Bhd) [2023] 3 MLJ 1 since then have affirmed this position. [26] Abdul Malik Ishak J (as His Lordship then was) had in Hariram a/l Jayaram & Ors (supra) held: “Likewise here, the sale and purchase agreements made in accordance with Schedule ‘H’ to the Housing Regulations which were in turn made under the Housing Act must take precedence over the Contracts Act 1950. Being a specific piece of social legislation enacted solely to protect house buyers from unscrupulous developers, the standard sale and purchase agreements signed by the plaintiffs must take precedence over the Contracts Act 1950 and must be given effect accordingly. In the words of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 231, especially at pp 235-236 of the report: In his argument based on alleged anomaly, counsel for the appellants was founding himself on the rider in what has come to be known as ‘Lord Wensleydale’s golden rule’ of statutory construction — namely, you are to apply statutory words and phrases according to their natural and ordinary meaning without addition or subtraction, unless that meaning produces injustice, absurdity, anomaly or contradiction, in which case you may modify the natural and ordinary meaning so as to obviate such injustice etc but no further. (Nowadays we should add to ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ the words ‘in their context and according to the appropriate linguistic register.’) Counsel for the appellants urged your Lordships, as he did the Court of Appeal, to modify the natural and ordinary meaning of the statutory language — in effect, to add words which are not in the statute in order to obviate what he claimed were the absurd and anomalous consequences of taking the words literally. The rider to ‘Lord Wensleydale’s golden rule’ may seem to be at variance with the citations of high authority contained in the speeches of my noble and learned friends. But this is not really so. The clue to their reconciliation is to be found in the frequently cited passage on statutory construction in Lord Blackburn’s speech in River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1877) 2 App Cas 743, 763: ‘In all cases the object is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used. But, from the imperfection of language, it is impossible to know what that intention is without inquiring farther, and seeing what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and what was the object, appearing from those circumstances, which the person using them had in view.’ Words and phrases of the English language have an extraordinary range of meaning. This has been a rich resource in English poetry (which makes fruitful use of the resonances, overtones and ambiguities), but it has a concomitant disadvantage in English law (which seeks unambiguous precision, with the aim that every citizen shall know, as exactly as possible, where he stands under the law). The first way, says Lord Blackburn, of eliminating legally irrelevant meanings is to look to the statutory objective. This is the well-known canon of construction referred to by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack which goes by the name of ‘the rule in Heydon’s case’ (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a (Nowadays we speak of the ‘purposive’ or ‘functional’ construction of a statute). It is axiomatic that in interpreting the specific piece of social legislation at hand, an interpretation must be arrived at so as to advance the object and purpose of the Housing Act. Full effect must therefore be accorded to the avowed social objective of the Housing Act….” [27] That being said, this Court will now have to determine whether the Defendant had breached the express terms of the SPA as well as the three-fold implied terms principle mentioned above. Defects [28] Accordingly, I will firstly deal with the aspects of the alleged defects in the Parcel. At the trial, the Plaintiffs’ expert witness has summarized the primary defects of the Parcel in his expert report, as detailed on pages 743–774 of Bundle F, and categorized as Defect Forms 1 to 6. The same defects were also addressed in the Defendant’s expert report on pages 1112–1169 of Bundle H. [29] In essence the Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Mr Kuan You Wai (SP 1) had concluded that there were: - a. leaking spots with high level of dampness due to water seepage from the roof top which originated from premature water proofing failure from the modified bitumen membranes; b. that there are cracks on the external wall in bedroom 2 caused by the temperature induced size change of the flat roof which has also contributed to the cracked tiles in the toilet in bedroom 2; c. dampness on the floor of bedroom 4 which is caused by water seepage through the cavities from the window and external wall. [30] In cross examination SP 1 had also testified: “Cross Examination of PW1 on pg 40, line 29-30, NOP Jilid 1, Enc 85 SP1 Ya let’s say this is 1 piece of flat roof, if water manage to seep from the water proofing cavities, I mean when it goes down to the membrane, water proofing membrane then there will be 1 layer of water pocket. Under the hot sun without rain, after the whole day of hot sun shine okay the water pocket will become heated together with the dry concreate so in the evening when heat start to dissipate because water can retain heat longer so ASTM C1153 require me to inspect the roof at 8pm to check for the hotspot. So, after I check the hotspot which is represented by the yellow colour, I used this moisture meter which can penetrate 20mm from the surface to confirm the water pocket. This is the way we check and derive to this conclusion the whole roof has a lot of water pocket.” [31] The following is the floor plan highlighting the defects across the roof, walls, and floors of the Parcel, as annexed in Annexure A of the Plaintiff’s Written Submissions. [32] For the record, I had made a site visit to the Parcel on ... and found that the defects as listed above still persisted on the day of the visit and I had observed that that the dampness was sufficiently visible to the naked eye and were in my opinion sufficiently serious so as to cause the Plaintiffs to be in a position to wit the Parcel was in my opinion uninhabitable and, more so when the said Parcel is supposed to be a high end condominium. [33] This observation of the dampness being sufficiently visible to the Symbol Decsription (Defects) References

Water leakages at the ceiling Defect Forms No,: 1, 6, 7, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 33, 34, 39 and 43.

CBOD: pg. 76 – 78, 799, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88, 90 and 95.

ACBOD Vol. `: 3, 4, 11, 13, 14 and 15 Water leakages into floor slab

Walls cracks

Defect Forms No,: 2,, 5, 6, 26 and 9

SP1’s Expert Report

SD4’s Expert Report

Floor Defects

Defect Forms No,: 2,, 5, 6, 26 and 27 SP1’s Expert Report naked eye was also affirmed by SD4 in the hot tubbing session, SD4 stated: “Hot Tubbing on pg. 939, line 9-14, NOP Jilid 3, Enc 87 YY: Here in the expert report I do not see any instrument used, perhaps can you explain why you do not use this method in checking the dampness? Lim: I think the dampness is quite obvious. Is damp, we didn't deny that. Just that the subsequent one normally as an architect we ask for expert help for further thorough check. Yeah” [34] I must also state that the Defendant’s expert, Ar. Lim Wei Liang (SD4) did not deny the existence of defects in the Plaintiffs’ Parcel but primarily disagreed with the Plaintiffs’ expert on the causes of these defects. [35] From the trial I have found that the Defendant’s expert, SD4, had admitted to the various defects in the Parcel within his expert report, oral testimony and hot tubbing session. [36] Based on the Defendant’s expert, SP4 there is a high level of dampness on the soffit to which SP4 testified that the possible causes of the water seepage include unsealed openings in the side drainage, gaps around the trunking, as well as cracks, holes, and cavities on the upper part of the external wall. To this SD4 had under cross examination also concurred with PW1’s opinion that the water seepage was caused by failure of the waterproofing system. [37] I have also observed that at the trial, both experts share a common and similar opinion that the rectification should be carried out by re-waterproofing with single-ply membranes. [38] I have also concluded based on SP1’s opinion which was not disputed by SD4, that the water seepage on the rooftop has resulted in the formation of water pockets, and that the leakage path originates approximately three meters from the location of these water pockets. To this I concur with the Plaintiff’s learned counsel that this constitutes an abnormality. [39] Coming to the ceiling defect in Bedroom 2, I find that both experts i.e. SP1 and SD4 had attributed the leakages and seepages to defects on the roof as can be found in the Scott Schedule at Enclosure 83, pages 4-5. [40] On the findings with regards Bedroom 2 Internal Wall, I find both experts had disagreed on how the cracks in the external wall were caused. [41] As to the toilet Bedroom 2 Wall, both experts had also disagreed on how the cracks in the wall tiles were caused, but both experts did however concur that the appropriate rectification involves replacing the tiles and installing suitable movement joints. [42] With respect to the floor defect in Bedroom 4, as outlined in Defect Sheet 6, both experts states that the defect was generally attributed to cracks in the external wall and issues with the roof and that the appropriate remedy is to repair and seal the affected areas. [43] All in, after examining the totality of the evidence before me, I do find and conclude that the defects identified, in particular that water leakage constitutes a significant defect within the Parcel are in my mind severe and significant, and demonstrates the Defendant’s failure to construct the Parcel in a good and workmanlike manner as required under Clause 14 of the SPA. [44] I also find from the evidence before me, that there have been recurring water leakages over multiple times due to an interconnected chain of issues. It is for this reason, that these water leakages rendered it impossible for the Defendant to complete the rectification works within a period of 30 days. I would for this purpose refer to Chee Tze Lic, the Senior Project Manager who is SD3, where in his testimony under cross examination corroborates my said findings where SD 3 testified: “Cross Examination of DW3 on pg. 861, line 31-35, NOP Jilid 3, Enc 87 SP And I also put to you that the Defendant cannot complete the rectification works within the 30 days because the defects here in the email are major defect. Do you agree? SD3 Yes.” The Wall Cracks [45] I now turn to the wall cracks which I find from the trial was admitted to by the Defendant as existing even before the delivery of the keys. This can be seen from the testimony of Chow Tet Fah @ Chu Tet Fah (SD1), the Civil and Structural Engineer for the Project under re-examination at trial where SD1 testified: “Re Examination of SD1 on pg. 659, line 12-19, NOP Jilid 2, Enc 86 PW: So pre Covid and you disagree. Can you tell the Court why do you disagree? SD1: Yes. The last time they were asked, certainly I did, I can't recollect the exact date because I went to this unit several times. Yes, pre Covid. I also inspected before this tenant moved in because they, some problem with the cracks. I went visited before then. But specifically, I think for this, this closet inspection where I see the, the leak inside the closet, that was December 22nd. Actually, I make a report on how to rectify that, that that defect as well after that” [46] Ccorroboration on SD1’s said testimony can be found in the evidence provided by SP1, the Plaintiffs’ witnesses: - “Cross Examination of SP1 on pg. 234, line 18-30, NOP Jilid 1, Enc 85 PW: So how would you know it must be these issues without doing coring and also openings cavities. SP1: There are many possible causes but some of the causes can be identified easily with naked eye and among the easy one which I think the architect has also put in his report, his first rebuttal to my report, that the open cavities are among some of the reason why waterproof failed. That's why I always refer to waterproofing system, which encompassed, you know, the ceiling of the opening, the flashing, all type of thing but in this case, something very simple has even been overlooked by the rectification team and it is a very obvious poor workmanship issue. It has been done earlier, not during my inspection. And my inspection was after the leaking has persisted for a number of years, and that is unacceptable. [47] I am of the view after careful consideration that this admission demonstrates that the defects were pre-existing and inherent and that the Parcel was not constructed using good materials nor in a workmanlike manner, as expressly required under the terms of the SPA. [48] It is therefore my decision that there is a breach of the express terms in Clause 14 of the SPA with regards to the Materials and workmanship to the said Parcel and/or that the Parcel was not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and /or the implied terms that the Defendant/developer has failed to do its work in a good and workmanlike manner and/or that it will supply good and proper materials; and that the Parcel will be reasonably fit for human habitation. When Was Vacant Possession Delivered [49] I now turn to the issue of when vacant possession for the Parcel was delivered to the Plaintiffs. Under clause 25(1) of the SPA, vacant possession of the Parcel shall be delivered to the Defendant within 48 calendar months from the date of the SPA in the manner specified and pursuant to clause 27(1) of the SPA, the delivery of vacant possession by the Defendant shall, inter alia, be supported by a Completion and Compliance Certificate certifying that the Parcel is safe and fit to be occupied. [50] From the evidence before me, the Defendant had issued a VP Notice by way of the Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession dated 25.12.2020 to the Plaintiff together with amongst others, the CCC dated 31.12.2019 certifying that the Parcel is safe and fit to be occupied. In the Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession, it was expressly stated therein that VP would be deemed to have been given 30 days from the date specified in the said Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession “…whether or not you have entered into possession or occupation of the abovesaid Property…pursuant to clause 27 of the SPA”. [51] I also find that the Plaintiffs had subsequently acknowledged receipt of the VP Notice/ Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession on 29.12.2020. [52] In this respect, this Court has taken notice that the Plaintiffs thereafter only collected the keys from the Defendant on 4.2.2021 and inspected the Parcel on the same day, after which the Plaintiffs immediately lodged a Defect Checklist with regards numerous defects to the Defendant and a further Defect Checklist dated 15.2.2021 for other defects was then also given to the Defendant. [53] It is consequently, therefore my decision that the Plaintiffs are deemed to have taken possession of the Parcel on or around 29.12.2020. [54] The Plaintiff had in the matter before me sought to argue before this Court that the SPA is tainted by irregularity, as it does not conform to the mandatory 36-month period for the delivery of vacant possession as per Regulation 11(1) of the HDR which states that any contract of sale of any housing accommodation in a subdivided building by housing developers must conform with the form prescribed in