the liquidated damages for the failure of the developer to deliver vacant possession of a housing accommodation. Applying the said provision to the facts of the case, learned counsel contended that the learned President should have excluded 167 days from 18.3.2020 until 31.8.2020 from the computation of time for delivery of VP of the property to the 1st respondent. Unfortunately, according to learned counsel, the learned President made no reference to the COVID-19 Act in the computation of the time for delivery of VP in calculating the LAD. The Analysis [21] I will first deal with the issue of whether the learned President had addressed his mind on the application of s 35(1) of the COVID-19 Act. I have gone through the grounds of the Award, and I find that the learned had indeed referred to s 35(1) in arriving at his Award. [22] In para 3.4 of the Award, the learned President made the following observation: The calculation of the LAD shall take into account Section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-109) Act 2020 (Act 829). Act 829 stated that the period of 18-3- 2020 till 31-8-2020 shall be excluded from the calculation of the time for delivery of VP AND the LAD calculation for failure of the Developer to delivery of VP i.e. falls on 24- 1-2020 the Tribunal is of the view that the calculation of extension of period shall be from 18-3-2020 till 31-8-2020 which amounts to 167 days. [23] It is therefore not accurate to suggest that the Tribunal had not considered the implication of s 35(1) of the COVID-19 Act. On the contrary, the learned President had made specific reference to the S/N hmA9bDg3k6xsojLIGIrkg said provision. [24] The learned President then proceeded to determine that the new date of delivery of VP should have been 10.4.2021, which was calculated after adding the extension of 167 days from the date of the original delivery of VP in accordance with the SPA. Since the VP was only delivered on 3.2.2023, the Tribunal held that the number of days delayed was 664 days. [25] The calculation of the LAD was therefore based as follows: RM248,000 x 10%/365 days x 664 = RM45,115.61. [26] According to Dato’ Oui, there were several payments made by the applicant to the 1st respondent or third parties on the instruction issued by the 1st respondent. The details of the payments, six altogether, can be seen in Exh R-4. The total payment made by the applicant to the 1st respondent or third parties on his instruction between 3.8.2020 and 8.2.2023 was RM50,000. [27] The learned President found that the payment for RM50,000 was not in settlement for the LAD, and he summarised the contention between the parties as follows. According to the learned President, despite the assertion that the Settlement Sum of RM50,000 was for the settlement of the LAD, there was no acknowledgement to that effect by the 1st respondent. [28] On the other hand, the 1st respondent’s argument is that the payment of RM50,000 was meant to be set off. Although the purchase price stipulated in the SPA was RM248,000, the parties agreed that the actual consideration was only for RM198,000. Hence, the rebate, in the form of two separate payments totalling RM50,000, was paid to the 1st respondent. [29] There were, therefore, two conflicting versions before the Tribunal. The applicant said the payment of RM50,000 was for the full settlement of the LAD agreed upon by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent contended that the two separate payments were for the rebate pursuant to the agreement of the parties that the actual purchase price was RM198,000 instead of RM248,000 as reflected in the SPA. [30] In approaching the issue, the learned President found that the two S/N hmA9bDg3k6xsojLIGIrkg separate payments were made even before the issue of LAD arose and that the amount, if at all, had not been crystallised yet. On this, the learned President held as follows: Further, the purported letter of waiver signed by PYM [the 1st respondent], duly prepared by the PP [the applicant] merely states that RM50,000 had been paid without reference that it was for LAD payment with the calculation thereof. The Tribunal is inclined to the conclusion that there is no settlement or waiver between the parties on the LAD issued pursuant to the statutory rights under the four corners of the SPA and such a defence by the PP is merely an afterthought. [31] Hence, the Award which is now the subject matter of judicial review. [32] Let me first refer to the Settlement Letter dated 9.2.2023. It states as follows: Saya, Mohd Adi Firdaus bin Mat Saad (NRIC No. T1179258) dengan ini mengakui terima serahan milikan kosong Hartanah tersebut daripada pihak tuan bersama dengan bayaran sebanyak RM50,000.00. Oleh yang demikian, saya dengan ini tidak akan membuat sebarang tuntutan daripada pihak tuan di bawah Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut. As alluded to by the learned President, there was no mention of the LAD in the Settlement Letter. [33] Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Khoo Soon Lee and argued that once a settlement is reached, it is binding on the parties. With respect, I think this is the correct proposition of the law. But what is the nature of settlement in Khoo Soon Lee? In that case, the parties entered into a consent judgment, but the respondents persisted in making the claim against the applicant before the Tribunal. It was for this reason that the High Court held that the respondents may not make any further claim against the applicant once they have agreed to the settlement. [34] Even in Chin Kok Woo, another judgment of the High Court relied on by the applicant, the remaining plaintiffs entered into settlement agreements with the 1st defendant, the developer, as to payment of the LAD after VP was delivered to them on 2.7.2018. S/N hmA9bDg3k6xsojLIGIrkg [35] Unlike Khoo Soon Lee and Chin Kok Woo, where the subject matter was clear and certain – which is for the purpose of settlement in respect of the LAD – there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement in the instant that refers to the LAD. In short, the terms of the letter are not certain or capable of being made certain. [36] I say this for two reasons. First, the letter was only an acknowledgement of receipt without any reference to the purpose of payment. Secondly, if Exh R-4 were to be of any assistance, the first tranche of the six payments was made to Koperasi Angkatan Tentera Malaysia Berhad, presumably on the instruction of the 1st respondent, on 3.8.2020 for the sum of RM15,047.28. Even the 2nd tranche for the sum of RM11,894.75, which was to the 1st respondent, was made on 3.8.2020. The payments were made well before the date of the new delivery of VP (taking into account the application of s 35(1) of the COVID-19 Act), which was supposed to be 10.4.2021. [37] The logical question arising from this factual matrix is, how would the applicant know that it was liable to pay the LAD well before the date of the scheduled delivery of VP? It is therefore obvious that the series of payments made by the applicant to the 1st respondent was unrelated to the LAD and certainly not under the SPA as stated in the Letter of Settlement. Whatever arrangement between the parties is outside the ambit of the SPA since it was not made pursuant to cl 5 and the Third Schedule of the SPA. [38] The only authorised payments in respect of the Schedule of Payment of the purchase price under the SPA would be under the Third. Any payment for the LAD is governed by cl 24(2), (3) and (4) of the SPA. If any settlement agreement is reached between the parties, it has to be made under the said sub-clauses. I take note that the Settlement Letter did not refer to any of the sub-clauses of cl 24. It is not that parties cannot settle the dispute arising from the late delivery of VP. They can. But such an arrangement must be made within the ambit and four corners of the SPA. [39] On this note, I respectfully agree with the finding of the learned President that the line of defence of the applicant before the Tribunal was merely an afterthought. S/N hmA9bDg3k6xsojLIGIrkg Findings [40] For the aforesaid reasons, my findings are as follows: