Chung Hon Cheong v Venus Assets Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-120-02/2020)

The Court had allowed the Plaintiff’s application for the suit be disposed by virtue of Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2014 (“the Rules”).

Order 14A (1) of the Rules states a follows:

Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A r. 1) 30/12/2022 10:37:13 WA-22NCvC-120-02/2020 Kand. 93

(a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and

(b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant had entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the purchase of a residential apartment of which the Defendant was the developer.

The Defendant failed to deliver vacant possession to the Plaintiff within 36 months as provided for under schedule H of the Housing Development (Control Licensing) Act 1966.

The Defendant in their defense stated that it had obtained approval from the authorities to be exempted from the provisions of the law and therefore the date of delivery is now governed under the sale and purchase agreement. The Issue

The issue raised by the Plaintiff to be determined under Order 14A is whether an extension can be given by the authorities in the light of express statutory provision of the law. Express Provision of the Law

The above issue has been determined with finality by the Federal Court in the case of Ang Min Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan & Kerajan Tempatan & Anor [2020] 1 MLJ 281; PJD Reisdency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 441.

The Federal Court in these cases decided that the Minister can only give exemption to any person by way of a publication of gazette giving the exemption. In the absence of such a gazette giving of any exemption is unlawful.

It was further decided by the Federal Court that the calculation of the delay in giving vacant possession exceeding the 36 months begun from the date of the payment of booking for the apartment.

This Court is bound by the decisions of the Federal Court and there being no gazette in this case permitting an extension of time, any extension of delivery of vacant possession is unlawful and the Plaintiff is entitled to the penalty for the late delivery calculated from the date of booking. Conclusion

In the light of the above the Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim as stated in the amended Statement of Claim with a cost of RM20,000. Dated: 29.12.2022 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Tetuan SF Chan & Co 4-3A-3A Kompleks Kantonmen Prima 698 Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah 51200 Kuala Lumpur For the Defendant: Tetuan Azman Davidson & Co. Suite 13.03 Tingkat 13 Menara Tan & Tan 207 Jalan Tun Razak 50400 Kuala Lumpur

Ang Min Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan & Kerajan Tempatan & Anor [2020] 1 MLJ 281;

PJD Reisdency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2021] 2 CLJ 441.