top of page

30 HOMEBUYERS WIN RM1.7 MILLION IN LAD CLAIM AGAINST DEVELOPER


By:


Bryan Lui (Co-Managing Partner) [bryanlui@luibhullar.com]

Harneshpal Karamjit Singh (Co-Managing Partner) [harnesh@luibhullar.com]



On 15 May 2023, High Court Judge YA Tee Geok Hock decided the following pertaining to 30 homebuyer's claims for LAD in the case of Blue Green Network Sdn Bhd & 29 Others -v- Pilihan Megah Sdn Bhd pertaining to a project named Sky Condominium, Puchong:-


1) Prescribed period of 36 months under Schedule H

Causes of action for liquidated damages ('LAD') in relation to the delivery of parcels accrue on the date of the Purchaser's vacant possession, based on the Sale and Purchase Agreement and relevant court decisions.


The computation of liquidated damages is based on 36 months from the relevant start date.


For parcels, the LAD computation ends on the date of actual or deemed possession, whichever is earlier.


For common facilities, the LAD computation ends on the date of completion of the facilities.


2) Starting date shall be the time Booking fees were paid


The accrual date for causes of action and remedies for declaration depends on the nature of the declaration sought, such as nullifying an administrative decision or asserting certain rights.


The period for delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities should be computed from the date of the Purchasers' payment of the deposit or booking fee.


The Easy Payment Scheme does not waive any liquidated damages for the period between payment and signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement.


3) No hindrance to claim even if the Sale and Purchase Agreement ('SNP/SPA') states a longer period than 36 months


The Plaintiffs are not estopped from claiming LAD based on a shorter period, even if they signed the agreements with a longer period stated.


Developers completing the project within a revised period are still liable for LAD, even if extension approvals have not been revoked.


4) Mode of the claim


The Plaintiffs have not filed the action in the wrong mode, and they are not required to file an application for judicial review to challenge the extension of time.


The said 30 homebuyers were represented by Messrs Lui & Bhullar.



14,774 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page