Ideal Principles Sdn Bhd v Central Spectrum (M) Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-176-04/2022)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO.: BA-22NCvC-176-04/2022 ANTARA IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 201301017662 [1047495-W]) − PLAINTIF DAN CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 198901005831 [183136-D]) − DEFENDAN

Preamble

pursuant to Clause 13.2 of the SPA, the Defendant/vendor shall be liable to pay to the Plaintiff/purchaser liquidated damages calculated from the day to day at the rate of 10% per annum of the Purchase Price from the expiry of the time of vacant possession as per Clause 13.1 of the SPA until the date the Plaintiff/purchaser is deemed to have taken vacant possession of the Lots in the manner as stated in the SPA.

Schedule

Jadual Keempat SPA dan tidak termasuk penyerahan sistem retikulasi air tersebut yang tertakluk kepada Klausa 10.3 SPA. (b) Defendan/penjual telah menyiapkan kerja-kerja bagi sistem retikulasi air bersama dengan infrastruktur asas seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Notice of Delivery. (c) bekalan air kekal adalah bergantung kepada penyerahan sistem retikulasi air kepada pihak berkuasa berkenaan yang masih dalam proses dan telah sampai peringkat akhir. (d) pada setiap masa material, Plaintif/pembeli sedar bahawa Defendan/penjual masih dalam proses menyerahkan sistem retikulasi air kepada pihak berkuasa berkenaan. E-mel Defendan/penjual bertarikh 4-9-2021 dan 18-2-2022 adalah berkaitan. (e) Defendan/penjual masih dalam usaha terbaik untuk menyerahkan sistem retikulasi air kepada pihak berkuasa berkenaan selaras dengan Klausa 10.3 SPA. (f) tiada tempoh spesifik dalam SPA yang mengikat dan menjadi obligasi kepada Defendan/penjual dalam penyerahan sistem retikulasi air. (g) proses penyerahan sistem retikulasi air berada di luar kawalan Defendan/penjual. Itulah sebabnya mengapa wujudnya Klausa 10.3 SPA. Asal sahaja Defendan/penjual melakukan segala yang boleh di bawah kuasanya untuk menyerahkan sistem retikulasi air seperti yang telah dan masih diusahakan oleh Defendan/penjual, maka Defendan/penjual telah menunaikan obligasinya di bawah Klausa 10.3 SPA. (h) SPA bagi Lots yang dibeli Plaintif/pembeli bukannya suatu perjanjian yang standard seperti perjanjian jual beli kondominium di antara pemaju dan pembeli yang dikawal selia oleh Akta tertentu dan pembeli tidak berpeluang untuk meminda SPA. (i) SPA bagi Lots Plaintif/pembeli telah dirunding secara teliti antara kedua-dua pihak maka tiada apa-apa terma berunsurkan sepihak (lopsided). Plaintif/pembeli diwakili peguamnya manakala Defendn/penjual tidak diwakili peguam. (j) Defendan/penjual telah menyerahkan milikan kosong kepada Plaintif/pembeli setelah penyelesaian infrastruktur asas pada 28-4-2017. Plaintif telah menikmati penggunaan Lots tersebut sejak tarikh tersebut. Maka, Plaintif/pembeli tidak berhak menuntut liquidated damages. The issues [10] The 3 issues raised are, namely – (a) whether the Defendant/vendor has failed to deliver the vacant possession of the Lots in accordance with Clauses 10.1 and 13.1 of the SPA? (b) whether the Defendant/vendor has failed to build and complete the water reticulation mains in accordance with Clauses 10 and read with the Fourth Schedule of the SPA? (c) in the event that the answers to issues in (a) and (b) are in the affirmative, whether the Plaintiff/purchaser is entitled to claim for the liquidated damages? The decision of this Court on 25-8-2023 [11] On 25-8-2023, I allowed the Plaintiff/purchaser’s claims. My decision briefly as follows: “KEPUTUSAN BAGI LAMPIRAN 1 [Aturan 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Disposal of Case on Point of Law] Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 26-9-2013 di antara Plaintif (Pembeli/Purchaser) dengan Defendan (Penjual/Vendor) adalah suatu dokumen penting untuk menentukan tuntutan bagi Liquidated Ascertained Damages/LAD. Mahkamah ini mendapati pelupusan Kes ini boleh dibuat menurut peruntukan A. 14A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Tiada keperluan untuk memanggil saksi-saksi dalam suatu perbicaraan. Berdasarkan Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 26-9-2013, Plaintif telah membeli Industrial Land daripada Defendan. Selanjutnya, Perjanjian tersebut juga mempunyai peruntukan khusus mengenai, antaranya – • Basic Infrastructure (Clause 10) • Delivery of Vacant Possession Pertikaian pihak-pihak mengenai Basic Infrastructure yang membawa kepada pertikaian mengenai komponen dan penyiapan Basic Infrastructure khususnya item “Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lot”. Mahkamah ini mendapati definisi “Basic Infrastructure” dinyatakan dalam Klausa-Klausa 1, 10 dan Fourth Schedule dan pihak yang dipertanggunjawabkan berkenaan dengan Basic Infrastructure ialah Defendan. Hanya Defendan yang berurusan dengan mana-mana pihak berkuasa yang relevan bagi Basic Infrastructure tersebut. Klausa Default by Purchaser and Determination of Agreement dinyatakan dalam Kalusa 7 manakala tiada peruntukan khusus mengenai Default by Vendor dalam Perjanjian. Peruntukan bagi tuntutan LAD (Klausa 13) dinyatakan dan ia merujuk kepada default by the Vendor untuk membayar kepada Pembeli. Plaintif memplidkan bahawa – “Since the Plaintiff entered into the said Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Defendant for the purchase of the said Lots 10 & 11 on 26-9-2013 and the issuance of Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession by the Defendant dated 28-4-2017, the water reticulation/permanent water supply to the said Lot 10 & 11 is still, until the date of filing of this action, not completed and not ready, which was also in fact, contrary to the Defendant’s claim of completion and handing over vacant possession on 28-4- Agreement.”. Selepas mempertimbangkan keterangan kedua-dua pihak dan dokumen yang dikemukakan, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif hanya kepada relief yang berikut: (a) Gantirugi jumlah tertentu (LAD) sebanyak RM2,107,331.35 setakat 18-2-2022. (b) Gantirugi jumlah tertentu (LAD) lanjutan sebanyak RM83,957.42 dikira dari hari ke hari pada kadar sepuluh peratus (10%) setahun atas RM4,377,780.00 (Harga Belian) dari 19-2-2022 (termasuk 19-2-2022) sehingga tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini pada 29-4-2022. (c) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah sebagaimana yang dinyatakan pada perenggan-perenggan (a) dan (b) di atas dari tarikh Penghakiman ini sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad. (d) kos sebanyak RM7,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur).”. [12] The Defendant/vendor aggrieved with the decision and appeal to the Court of Appeal. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision. The Applicable Laws [13] The provisions in the Rules of Court 2012 – Determination Without the Full Trial of the Action “Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (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. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. (4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar. (5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18, rule 19 or any other provisions of these Rules.”. “Order 33. Mode of trial Mode of trial (O. 33, r. 1) 1. Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a cause or matter, or any question or issue arising therein, may be tried before a Judge or Registrar, with or without the assistance of assessors. Time of trial of questions or issues (O. 33, r. 2) 2. The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated.”. [14] Some of the authority in the case laws pertaining to O.14A − (i) Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v. Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122 − “[10] … The power, in our opinion, is only exercisable where determination of any such question of law or construction of any document, as the case may be, appears to the court to be suitable without the full trial of the action and will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue in such action. This is a required prior condition or prerequisite which must be fulfilled before this order can be invoked. The court should not, as a matter of course, proceed to determine any such question without first considering the legal prerequisite in this order.”. (ii) Ramba AK Bungkong & Yang Lain v. Asso Green Sdn Bhd [In the Court of Appeal of Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. Q-02(IM)(NCVC)-2507- 12/2017], held that – The suitability and applicability of Order 14A [24] There are settled and established principles in our case law authorities that had firmly determined the ambit and the application of Order 14 A of the ROC. [30] As stated by the Court of Appeal in Petroleum Nasional Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu (supra), even if the case appears to be or is complicated, the court must not shun from considering the applicability of O14A and O33 r 2 of the ROC in relation to the questions posed. A case involving a claim on NCR, in our view is no exception. Everything boils down to the question of whether the requirements for summary determination of the questions of law are present and satisfied, based on the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. [31] The test of whether the question of law or construction is suitable to be determined under Order 14A was dealt with by the Federal Court in Racha Urud (supra) at page 403 wherein reference was made to the commentary on Order 14A appearing in the Malaysian Court Practice (Practitioner Edition) at pp 125-127 which states – “The test of whether the question of law or construction is ‘suitable’ to be determined under this order is whether all the necessary and material facts relating to the subject matter of the question have been duly proved or admitted, and this postulates that there is no dispute or no further dispute as to the relevant facts at the time when the court proceeds to determine the question. The suitability of disposing of an action under this order depends entirely on whether the court can determine the question of law raised without a full trial of the action…”. [32] In Racha Urud (supra) the Federal Court held that an application under Order 14A is to decide clear points of law or construction apparent on the pleadings and one primary task which must be undertaken by the court in deciding on the suitability and applicability of the order is to consider whether the pleadings disclose any dispute on the material facts. The Apex Court observed that “pleadings must cover a wide range of cause papers. The only cause papers available in our instant case are the statement of claims, the defence, reply and the affidavits in support of the O.14A applications.”. [33] It may be useful to briefly refer to the following excerpt from the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2015 (Sweet & Maxwell) at page 130 on the principles governing the application of Order 14A: “The outcome of an application under Order 14A does not need to dispose of the entire case. It is sufficient if substantial matters in the case can be disposed of: Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2003] 5 AMR 696 [2004] 1 MLJ 8; [2003] 4 CLJ 337, CA; of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 105; [2008] 2 MLJ 812. The issue to be determined should be a core legal issue that may for practical purposes turn out to be determinative of the case; Rockwin Enterprise Ltd v Shui Yee Ltd [2003] 3 HKC 174 at 184; Netwell Properties Ltd v JCG Finance Co Ltd [2003] 4 HKC 566, CA (HK). An application under Order 14A is inappropriate if: (a) There are conflicting allegations of fact. All material facts relating to the subject matter of the claim must be undisputed or admitted; and not on the basis of assumed facts. If cannot be invoked on the basis of assumed facts. The court should not give a ruling under Order 14A in vacuo or based on hypothetical facts. Danaharta Managers Sdn Bhd v Melewar Leisure Sdn Bhd & Ors [2008] 4 AMR 553; [2008] 4 MLJ 448.”. [15] In the case of Thein Hong Teck & Ors v. Mohd Afrizan Husain [2012] 1 MLRA 712 − “26. Berdasarkan kes di atas, tuntutan Plaintif akan dilupuskan menurut Aturan 14A hanya dalam keadaan di mana tiada pertikaian antara pihak-pihak mahupun berdasarkan bukti-bukti dokumen yang ada terhadap fakta-fakta penting tuntutan tersebut. Plaintif-Plaintif selanjutnya berhujah bahawa, tiada pertikaian fakta penting dalam kes semasa seperti, pengubahsuaian perjanjian jual beli berkenaan tempoh serahan hak milik, kelewatan serahan milikan kosong dan kelulusan tempoh lanjutan 48 bulan yang diberikan oleh Pengawal perumahan…”. [16] In order to understand the whole structure of water supply to the Lots, the relevant provisions from Water Services Industry Act 2006 [Act 655] needs to be read, namely – Long Title & Preamble An Act to provide for and regulate water supply services and sewerage services and for matters incidental thereto. WHEREAS it is expedient for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of law and policy to make a law for the proper control and regulation of water supply services and sewerage services throughout Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan: AND WHEREAS it is also expedient that provisions be made to confer executive authority on the Federation for matters relating to water supply systems and water supply services and to make it clear that the executive authority conferred on the Federation for matters relating to sewerage systems and sewerage services is continued throughout Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan: “consumer” means − (a) a person who is supplied with water by a water distribution licensee or provided with sewerage services by a licensee providing sewerage services; or (b) a person who has made a request to a water distribution licensee for a supply of water or to a licensee providing sewerage services for a provision of sewerage services; “water supply system” means the whole of a system incorporating public mains, pipes, chambers, treatment plants, pumping stations, service or balancing reservoirs or any combination thereof and all other structures, installations, buildings, equipment and appurtenances used and the lands where the same are located for the storage, abstraction, collection, conveyance, treatment, distribution and supply of water; PART IV - PROVISIONS RELATING TO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, WATER SUPPLY SERVICES, SEWERAGE SYSTEMS AND SEWERAGE SERVICES Chapter 1 - Water supply system and sewerage system Section 45. Construction of water supply system, sewerage system and septic tanks (1) No person shall construct, alter, modify, disconnect or close up a water supply system, sewerage system, septic tank, individual internal sewerage piping or common internal sewerage piping unless the relevant plans or specifications which requires the approval of the Commission have first been approved in writing by the Commission. xxx. Section 46. Requirement for developer to construct water supply system and sewerage system A developer of a new development shall be required to construct a water supply system and a sewerage system or part of the systems in its development in accordance with requirements set out in any plan and specification approved by the Commission according to section 45. Section 47. Developer to hand over water supply system or sewerage system of new development to service licensee (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (5), a developer of a new development which is within a service licensee's water supply distribution area or sewerage services area, as the case may be, shall, upon the issuance of the certificate of compliance of the water supply system or sewerage system or part of the systems by a qualified person, hand over the water supply system or sewerage system or part of the systems within the development to the water distribution licensee or the service licensee providing sewerage services, as the case may be, at no cost, for the purposes set out in subsection (3). (2) The service licensee shall accept the water supply system or sewerage system or part of the systems, as the case may be, after the service licensee is satisfied that the water supply system or the sewerage system or part of the systems meets the requirements set out in the approved plans and specifications and standards. (3) Upon the water supply system or the sewerage system or part of the systems being handed over to the service licensee, the service licensee shall operate and maintain such system. (4) The developer shall provide or cause the owner of the land to provide the service licensee access to the water supply system and sewerage system or part of the systems for the purposes of operating and maintaining such system. (5) The Commission may exempt any developer from the requirements of this section. (6) A person who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. Evaluations & Findings of this Court [17] The trial dates had been fixed for 2 days i.e. on 10 and 17 July 2023, all cause papers were ready except the witness statements. [18] This Court has of the view that the Plaintiff/purchaser’s claims are rightfully can be disposed pursuant to O. 14A. This Court had judiciaously exercise her discretion and follow the principles that – (a) the question of law must be suitable for determination without the full trial of the action: O.14A r.1(a). (b) the determination of question of law will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue in the action: O.14A r.1(b). [19] The fact of this case is about the SPA entered by both parties where the Plaintiff/purchaser is buying 2 Lots of the industrial land Phase 3A in Pulau Indah Industrial Park. [20] The Defendant/vendor aver that the Defendant/vendor was unrepresented by any solicitor. Only the Plaintiff/purchaser has its own solicitor. [21] This Court has examined and read the full text of the SPA that contains contains the following: • Recitals. • Clause 1: Definitions and Interpretations. • Clause 2: Agreement to sell and to purchase. • Clause 3: Purchase Price. • Clause 4: Times of the Essence. • Clause 5: Financing Facility. • Clause 6: Completion of Sale and Purchase. • Clause 7: Default by the Purchaser and Determination of Agreement. • Clause 8: Transfer. • Clause 9: Position and Area of the Lot. • Clause 10: Basic Infrastructure. • Clause 11: Payment of Outgoings. • Clause 12: Maintenance of Services. • Clause 13: Delivery of Vacant Possession. • Clause 14: Prohibition Against Any Caveat. • Clause 15: Consent to Assignment and Charge. • Clause 16: Compliance with Laws and Regulations. • Clause 17: Construction of Premises. • Clause 18: Additional Fees and Charges. • Clause 19: Rights of Entry. • Clause 20: Access by Vendor. • Clause 21: Representations and Warranties of the Purchaser. • Clause 22: Purchaser’s Covenants. • Clause 23: Purchaser’s Covenants Running with the Lot. • Clause 24: Compulsory Acquisition. • Clause 25: Common Rights of Purchaser. • Clause 26: Alteration in Condition and State of Lot. • Clause 27: Notice. • Clause 28: Severability. • Clause 29: Costs and Fees. • Clause 30: Knowledge and Acquiscence by the Vendor. • Clause 31: Schedule and Annexure. • Clause 32: Successor-In-Title and Assigns. • Clause 33: Law Applicable. • Clause 34: Force Majeure. • Clause 35: Entire Agreement. • Clause 36: Assignment. • First Schedule. • Second Schedule. • Third Schedule. • Fourth Schedule. [22] It is crystal clear that the SPA is not one-sided agreement that only protect the Plaintiff/purchaser. The clauses are the agreed terms by the parties. Since the Plaintiff/purchaser is buying/purchasers the industrial land therefore the SPA did state the basic structure (Clause 10) that tide together with delivery of vacant possession of the Lots upon completion of the basic structure provided in the Fourth Schedule. FOURTH SCHEDULE (which is to be taken read and construed as an essential part of this Agreement) BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE LOT (a) Site cleaning and earthworks. (b) Road and roadside drains excluding entrance/slab/bridge for drain crossing. (c) Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lot. (d) Electrical Substations within the vicinity of the Lot. (e) Telephone ductworks and manholes to the vicinity of the Lot. [23] The gist and cardinal points of the Plaintiff/purchaser claims are about paragraph (c) to the Fourth Schedule that is Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lot. [24] To determine the issue on the delivery of the vacant possessions of the Lots bought by the Plaintiff/purchaser, the main fact is about the water reticulation works and/or water reticulation system before the relevant authorities could accept the handing over for use as public water supply system. [25] The submissions by the learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor are that the Defendant/vendor has fulfilled its obligation under the SPA. The non-completion is not the Defendant/vendor’s fault. The Defendant/vendor reasons are – (a) Paip Agihan Utama sahaja tidak memberikan bekalan air kekal namun Infrastruktur Asas di bawah Perjanjian tersebut HANYA meliputi Paip Agihan Utama. (b) tempoh bagi proses penyerahan sistem bekalan air adalah di luar kawalan Defendan. Itulah sebabnya mengapa Klausa 10.3 wujud dalam Perjanjian tersebut dan asalkan Defendan melakukan segala vanq boleh di bawah kuasanya, “..do everything possible within its power” untuk menyerahkan Infrastruktur Utama, obligasinya di bawah Klausa 10.3 adalah tertunai. (c) tiada tempoh spesifik dalam Perjanjian tersebut yang mengikat Defendan dalam serahan Infrastruktur Utama dan susulan daripada itu, Klausa 10.3 Perjanjian tersebut jelas menunjukkan niat kedua-dua pihak bahawa tiada apa-apa tempoh masa spesifik yang harus mengikat Defendan dalam pelaksanaan obligasi ini. [26] The learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor then submits – “Kami di sini menegaskan bahawa efek kepada industri pembinaan di Malaysia adalah sangat prejudis kepada pemaju-pemaju sekiranya keputusan Mahkamah adalah memihak kepada pembeli-pembeli seperti Plaintif. Hal ini kerana industri pembinaan Malaysia akan mengalami kerugian sekiranya semua pemaju harus dipertanggungjawabkan atas kelewatan pihak berkuasa berkenaan untuk mengambil alih sistem bekalan air. Namun demikian, jika terdapat sebarang kelewatan dalam tempoh masa serahan sistem bekalan air, kelewatan tersebut juga disebabkan oleh Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) yang dikuatkuasa oleh Kerajaan Malaysia sebagai langkah pencegahan wabak COVID-19. Hal ini telah dijelaskan kepada Plaintif melalui emel-emel Defendan bertarikh 4 September 2021 dan 24 Disember 2021.”. [27] The submissions by the learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor for this case is only specific for the facts in this case. The decision of this case that held in favour of the Plaintiff/purchaser will not and never cause any injustice to semua pemaju harus dipertanggungjawabkan atas kelewatan pihak berkuasa berkenaan untuk mengambil alih sistem bekalan air. [28] The fact as contended by the Defendant/vendor that – “… milikan kosong telah diserahkan kepada Plaintif setelah penyelesaian Infrastruktur Asas pada 28 April 2017; … dan Plaintif telah menikmati penggunaan Lot tersebut semenjak itu. … Maka, tuntutan-tuntutan Plaintif adalah tidak berasas. Bukan itu sahaja, Plaintif telah gagal untuk mengenalpasti mana-mana terma dalam Perjanjian tersebut yang telah dilanggari oleh Defendan maka tuntutan ganti rugi jumlah tertentu adalah tanpa asas dan Plaintif tidak berhak untuk menuntut demikian. Bukan itu sahaja, Perjanjian tersebut bukannya satu perjanjian yang standard seperti perjanjian jual beli kondominium di antara pemaju dan pembeli, yang mana ia adalah dikawal selia oleh Akta tertentu dan pembeli tidak berpeluang untuk membuat sebarang pindaan. Perjanjian tersebut bagi lot Plaintif telah dirunding secara teliti di antara kedua-dua pihak, maka tiada sebarang terma di dalamnya adalah berunsur sepihak (lopsided).”. [29] There are contradiction and inconsistency as to the learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor’s submission, at one side the Defendant/vendor submits that the SPA is lopsided because the Defendant/vendor is unrepresented by any solicitors and on the other side the Defendant/vendor submits that Perjanjian tersebut bagi lot Plaintif telah dirunding secara teliti di antara kedua-dua pihak, maka tiada sebarang terma di dalamnya adalah berunsur sepihak. [30] The issues on the terms in the SPA that already analysed by this Court is that the SPA is specific to the property bought by the Plaintiff/purchaser is LAND and not house/condominium etc. That is the reason for the Plaintiff/purchaser to ask this Court to read and understand Act 655 and its subsidiary legislations made under Act 655. [31] Regarding the delay is due to “Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan (PKP) yang dikuatkuasa oleh Kerajaan Malaysia sebagai langkah pencegahan wabak COVID-19. Hal ini telah dijelaskan kepada Plaintif melalui emel-emel Defendan bertarikh 4 September 2021 dan 24 Disember 2021”, my decision is that the Defendant/vendor did not plead it in the defence and did not invoke the Force Majeure clause in the SPA. [32] The issues that raised by the Defendant/vendor that this suit is not suitable for O. 14A due the reasons that there are questions of facts to be determined via trial, namely − (a) if there are many disputes on the facts, the action is unsuitable to be disposed under O. 14A RoC 2012. The authority is in the case of Shong Mor Sdn Bhd v. Cavman Development (Kedah) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2009] 9 MLJ 175. (b) there is extrinsic evidence that are relevant and material to be produced before this Court to give effect to the defence by the Defendant/vendor. The authority is in the case of Bernard Thomazios v. Tharmaraj Avadurai a/l Avadurai & Ors [2007] 8 MLJ 519. (c) based on the documents filed in this Court, the Plaintiff/purchaser has failed to prove that the Plaintiff/purchaser is entitle to the claims as pleaded in the statement of claim dated 29-4-2022. The authority is in the case of Law Hock Key & Anor v. Yap Meng Kan & Ors [2008] 3 CLJ 470. [33] This Court has read and did not ignore the learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor’s submission and explanation to support its 3 main reasons whereby the stand made by the Defendant/vendor is that the allegations by the Plaintiff/purchaser that there is no permanent water supply to the Lots is baseless and misconceived in law. To support and proof its contentions, the Defendant/vendor stated that − a) Defendan telah menyerahkan milikan kosong Lot tersebut secara sah dan sempurna menurut Klausa 10.1 dan 13.1 Perjanjian tersebut. b) Defendan telah membina dan menyiapkan sesalur retikulasi air (water reticulation mains) mengikut Klausa 10.1 dibaca bersama perenggan (c) dalam Jadual Keempat Perjanjian tersebut. c) Defendan menegaskan bahawa kerja-kerja fizikal bagi Infrastruktur Asas, iaitu kerja-kerja fizikal bagi sesalur retikulasi air atau paip agihan utama kepada Lot tersebut (“Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lot”) (“Paip Agihan Utama”) telah disiapkan selaras dengan Klausa 10.1 dibaca bersama dengan perenggan (c) dalam Jadual Keempat Perjanjian tersebut. [34] The explanation about “sistem bekalan air” as stated by the learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor must not been submitted contrary to Act 655 and its subsidiary legislations. This Court finds that the SPA did not make any reference to Act 655 nor the subsidiary legislations made under the Act. [35] The learned counsel for the Defendant/vendor’s submission that firmly stated that the obligations under the SPA were fulfilled by the Defendant/vendor − • ia adalah dijelaskan bahawa sistem bekalan air terdiri daripada dua sistem, iaitu (a) sistem retikulasi air (“water reticulation system”); dan (b) sistem tangki air (“water tank system”). • tanggungjawab Defendan di bawah Klausa 10.1 Perjanjian tersebut adalah untuk menyiapkan pembinaan Paip Agihan Utama kepada Lot sahaja menurut piawaian pihak autoriti yang berkenaan, iaitu Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (“Air Selangor”). • maka, Infrastruktur Utama menurut Perjanjian tersebut hanya meliputi Paip Agihan Utama dan Paip Agihan Utama merupakan sebahagian daripada sistem retikulasi air. • ia adalah penting di sini untuk menafsirkan makna perkataan “mains” dalam Jadual Keempat Perjanjian tersebut. Perkataan tersebut adalah ditakrifkan dalam Cambrldge Dictionary seperti berikut: “The main underground pipe in a system of pipes supplying water to an area.”. • definisi “Water Mains” − “A water main is water pipe which is a part of the wafer supply system.”. • definisi dalam Merriam-Webster juga adalah seperti berikut: “a pipe or conduit for conveying water.”. • penjelasan bersama dengan dokumen-dokumen sezaman (contemporaneous documents) menunjukkan bahawa tanggungjawab Defendan di bawah Klausa 10.1 dan perenggan (c) Jadual Keempat Perjanjian tersebut adalah tertunai dengan pembinaan Paip Agihan Utama (water reticulation mains). ▪ surat kelulusan yang dikeluarkan oleh Air Selangor untuk sistem bekalan air pada 14 Mac 2016 untuk meluluskan pelan untuk, antara yang Iain, sebahagian daripada sistem retikulasi air (“Sistem Retikulasi tersebut”) iaitu Paip Agihan Utama yang dirujuk dalam surat tersebut; selepas penerimaan Surat Kelulusan tersebut, kerja-kerja fizikal bagi Sistem Retikulasi tersebut dimulakan oleh Defendan dengan segera. ▪ susulan daripada itu, Sijil Penyempurnaan bertarikh 1 November 2016 dikeluarkan selaras dengan Klausa 10.2 Perjanjian tersebut daripada perunding untuk Defendan, iaitu Tetuan Ganendra, Ahmad & Associates Sdn Bhd (“perunding Defendan”) untuk mengesahkan bahawa kerja-kerja fizikal bagi Sistem Retikulasi tersebut telah disiapkan pada 26 Oktober 2016. ▪ seterusnya, Sijil Milikan Kosong bagi Lot 4 hingga 20, termasuk Lot tersebut, yang dikeluarkan oleh perunding Defendan untuk memperakui bahawa kerja-kerja fizikal Infrastruktur Asas telah dilengkapkan (“Sijil Milikan Kosong tersebut”). ▪ sementara proses-proses di atas sedang dijalankan, Air Selangor akan pada masa yang sama menjalani beberapa sesi pemeriksaan Sistem Retikulasi tersebut dengan kerjasama Defendan untuk memastikan kelancaran penyerahan Sistem Retikulasi tersebut kepada Air Selangor selepas kerja-kerja fizikal tersebut dilengkapkan. Hal ini dikawal selia di bawah Klausa 10.3 Perjanjian tersebut (sila rujuk perenggan 39 di bawah untuk penjelasan lanjut tentang proses penyerahan tersebut). ▪ selepas itu, Notis Serahan Milikan Kosong bertarikh 28 April 2017 (“Notis Serahan Milikan Kosong”) yang dikeluarkan kepada Plaintif selaras dengan Klausa 13.3 Perjanjian tersebut bertujuan untuk Plaintif mengemukakan apa-apa bukti untuk mempertikaikan kesahan Sijil Penyempurnaan dan Sijil Milikan Kosong yang dikeluarkan oleh perunding Defendan. ▪ berdasarkan itu, ia adalah jelas bahawa tanggungjawab Defendan di bawah Klausa 10.1 Perjanjian tersebut adalah tertunai. • selepas itu, bekalan air kekal adalah bergantung kepada penyerahan sistem bekalan air kepada Air Selangor. • ia adalah penting untuk memahami bahawa kerja-kerja fizikal bagi Paip Agihan Utama tidak termasuk penyerahan Sistem Retikulasi tersebut kepada Air Selangor. Hal ini adalah tertakluk kepada Klausa 10.3 Perjanjian tersebut, bukan Klausa 10.1 seperti yang didakwa oleh Plaintif yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “...fallen over and maintained by the relevant Appropriate Authorities.”. • konsep tersebut telah dibangkitkan dan turut dipersetujui oleh mahkamah dalam banyak kes seperti dalam kes Salmah bte Sulaiman & Anor (Administratrices of the estate of Ahmad bin Ibrahim, deceased) v. Metroplex Development Sdn Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 369 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[372F] We agree with Siti Norma Yaakob J that the rule speaks of connection of the electrical and water mains and that the respondent’s obligation was only to connect the electricity and water mains to the internal electricity and water mains and not to supply the flow of water and electricity. [373A-B] In our view, the rule and cl 18 of the agreement clearly state that the duty of the developer is only to connect the electricity and water mains to the internal mains. The supply of water and electricity are the responsibility of the relevant authorities.”. • melalui kes Mahkamah Rayuan yang baru yang mempunyai fakta-fakta yang sama dengan Tindakan ini, iaitu kes Icon City Development Sdn Bhd v. K-Shin Corporation Sdn Bhd [2022] 9 CLJ 827, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan merumuskan seperti berikut: [34] We further find that the learned High Court Judge should not have interpreted the SPA in such a manner that combined the two separate and distinct events into a single event when they are not. There is no statutory prohibition against the segregation of these two events. The appellant and the respondent have voluntarily entered into the SPA and parties have conducted their affairs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SPA. The sanctity of the contract entered between parties should be preserved. xxx. [37] As such, without a right of occupation, the issue of actual electricity and water supply are not relevant and neither does the SPA in this case specified these requirements. There is a clear difference between “accusation” and “possession”. Vacant possession is not synonymous with the right occupation. xxx. [39] Our considered view is that there is merit in that the appellant’s contention that cl. 13 of the SPA merely requires the appellant to physically complete works and provide a certificate of practical completion by the architect as sufficient to provide vacant possession and and that it would matter not, if the shop office was not connected with the essential utilities. • dalam kes Koperasi Permodalan Felda Malaysia Bhd v. Icon Citv Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] 2 CLJ 1 yang mempunyai fakta-fakta yang sama dengan kes Icon City Development (supra) di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memberi keputusan yang sama di perenggan 35, 36 dan 37. [36] When this Court decided that this suit can be disposed by way of O. 14A RoC 2012, both the statement of claims and defence had been examined and determined. The issue on “completion of the water reticulation reticulation system” as stipulated in the SPA is the main determination. To determine this issue, it is justified and sufficiently to read and analyse the SPA. [37] The issuance of the Certificate of Completion and the Notice of Delivery dated 28-4-2017 had shown that, there are clear evidences that the Defendant/vendor’s email dated 4-9-2021 had confirmed that the modification and rectification work as approved by AIR Selangor tentatively target to be completed by end of October 2021; the Defendant/vendor in its email dated 18-2-2022 confirmed that Defendant’s contractor was still in the final stage of the rectification works; [38] The provision in clause 10.2 of the SPA was agreed by the parties that the vendor (Defendant) to give vacant possession of the property to the purchaser (Plaintiff) with the complete water reticulation mains and/or water reticulation system for the Lots 10 & 11. [39] By arguing that the terms pertaining to the obligation of the vendor (Defendant) is just a deeming provision, the true intention of the SPA would lead to injustice or absurdity, the application of the deeming provisions should be limited to the extent needed to avoid such injustice or absurdity. Without the completion of paragraph/item (c) in the Fourth Schedule of the SPA, the Plaintiff had not enjoyed and benefitted the land and/or Lots bought from the Defendant. [40] The decision pronounced by this Court had stated that “Mahkamah ini mendapati definisi “Basic Infrastructure” dinyatakan dalam Klausa-Klausa 1, 10 dan Fourth Schedule dan pihak yang dipertanggunjawabkan berkenaan dengan Basic Infrastructure ialah Defendan. Hanya Defendan yang berurusan dengan mana-mana pihak berkuasa yang relevan bagi Basic Infrastructure tersebut.” is correct with the defence pleaded that the Defendant Defendant was still in the process of submitting the Reticulation System to the relevant authorities. [41] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff had entered into the SPA with the Defendant on 26-9-2013 and the issuance of Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession by the Defendant dated 28-4-2017, the water reticulation/permanent water supply to the Lot 10 & Lot 11 is still, until the date of filing of this action, not completed and not ready, which was also in fact, contrary to the Defendant’s claim of completion and handing over vacant possession on 28-4-2017. [42] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has highlighted in her oral and written submissions that it is an undisputed fact that there is no permanent water supply available to the said Lots 10 & 11 as at the date of filing of this action, which is about 5 years since the issuance of Notice of Delivery of Vacant Possession and more than 8 years since the date of the SPA. [43] Rule 29 of the Water Services Industry (Water Reticulation and Plumping) Rules 2014 (“WSIR”) refer by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, that − 29. Handing over of external water reticulation system and supply main (1) Upon the issuance of the certificate of compliance of external water reticulation system or supply main by a qualified person under section 47 of the Act, a developer shall apply to a water distribution licensee in the form prescribed in the Ninth Schedule to hand over the operation and maintenance of the external water reticulation system or supply main to the water distribution licensee. (2) Where the water distribution licensee is satisfied that- (a) all requirements set out in the approved plans and specifications and the recognised standards are met; (b) the as built drawings of the external water reticulation system or supply main certified by the qualified person have been submitted to the water distribution licensee; and (c) the external water reticulation system or supply main has been completed and every part thereof is in proper working order and where applicable, the necessary spares for any pumping equipment have been supplied, the water distribution licensee shall accept the handing over of the external water reticulation system or supply main at no cost for use as a public water supply system by issuing the form prescribed in the Tenth Schedule to the developer. [44] This Court agrees with the Plaintiff that Act 655 must be read together with the subsidiary legislation made under the Act for more details on the requirements about handing over of external water reticulation system and supply main to the relevant authorities. It is not the duty of the relevant authorities to build or to complete the external water reticulation system and supply main for the Defendant. There is no proof about the allegation that the relevant authorities had delayed the approval. [45] Pursuant to section 2 of the Water Services Industry Act 2006 (Act 655), “water distribution licensee” means a service licensee who holds an individual licence to distribute and supply water to consumers by means of a public water supply system. [46] The Plaintiff/purchaser has pleaded that no such form as prescribed in the Tenth Schedule pursuant to subrule 29(2) of the WSIR has been issued, and there is no permanent water supply available to the said Lots 10 & 11, proved that the Defendant/vendor had clearly failed to construct and complete the water reticulation mains and/or water reticulation system in accordance with the requirements and standards of the relevant authorities as provided in clause 10.1 of the SPA. [47] This Court is satisfied that from the Defendant’s pleadings as well as Defendant’s documentary evidence, it has taken more than several years for the Defendant to complete the water reticulation works, which until the date of filing of this action, has yet to be rectified/completed and finalised, hence obviously unreasonable. [48] This Court has finds that the Defendant/vendor is liable for the late delivery, therefore the Liquidated Damages must be calculated based on the formula stated in the SPA. [49] The amount allowed by this Court is as follows: (a) Gantirugi jumlah tertentu (LAD) sebanyak RM2,107,331.35 setakat 18-2-2022. (b) Gantirugi jumlah tertentu (LAD) lanjutan sebanyak RM83,957.42 dikira dari hari ke hari pada kadar sepuluh peratus (10%) setahun atas RM4,377,780.00 (Harga Belian) dari 19-2-2022 (termasuk 19-2-2022) sehingga tarikh pemfailan tindakan ini pada 29-4-2022. (c) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah sebagaimana yang dinyatakan pada perenggan-perenggan (a) dan (b) di atas dari tarikh Penghakiman ini sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad. Conclusion [50] This suit is suitable for disposal by way of determination through the issues and or questions of law as above without the necessity of this Court requiring to determine this matter through a full trial. Based on the above, the issues and or questions of law ought to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Plaintiff. [51] There is no provision/clause on “Default by Vendor” in the SPA, therefore, the Defendant/vendor is not wisely trying hard to escape from its liability to fulfil its obligation pertaining to BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE LOT i.e., Water reticulation mains to the vicinity of the Lot. [52] For the above reasons, I allowed the Plaintiff’s claims with costs (subject to the allocator fee). Dated: 21 October 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court NCvC12 The Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Fong Lip Jeen Tetuan Wong & Ting, Shah Alam, Selangor For the Defendant: Deborah Lau Ee Yi Tetuan Khairuddin Ngiam & Tan, Kuala Lumpur