top of page

“ANG MING LEE NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED! PURCHASER’S 36-MONTH STATUTORY CLAIM FOR LAD VALID” SAYS COA

Lui & Bhullar’s Appellate Update

By:

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

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

Chandni Anantha Krishnan (Partner) [chandni@luibhullar.com]



On 18.10.2021, the Court of Appeal in Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd v Lam Su See [Civil Appeals No.: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-624-03/2021 & W-02(IM)(NCvC)-625-03/2021] affirmed the decision of learned Judicial Commissioner Quay Chew Soon in the High Court.


Learned Judicial Commissioner Quay Chew Soon held as follows:


(a) That the statutory Schedule H contract of sale which specifies a 36-month completion period cannot be modified and varied;


(b) Extensions of time to vary the completion period has been declared illegal and void ab initio by the Federal Court in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 162 (“Ang Ming Lee”);


(c) Estoppel cannot operate against statutory provisions, especially where the contract of sale is a statutory contract. A homebuyer can claim for Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”) even if the said homebuyer has executed LAD waiver / settlement letters;


(d) That there can be no unjust enrichment against the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“HDA”);


(e) That the High Court is bound by the decision of the Federal Court in Ang Ming Lee.


For an in-depth reading of the High Court decision of learned Judicial Commissioner Quay Chew Soon in Lam Su See v Prema Bonanza [Suit No. WA-22NCvC-418-07/2020], please click on the link, as follows:


In conclusion, the decision of the Court of Appeal as above, is stated in writing, as follows:


“We thank parties for the submission, both oral as well as written submission. This is our unanimous decision. We find no appealable error by the learned high court judge in dismissing the striking out application and also in allowing the summary judgment. Therefore we dismiss both appeals in R8 (W-02(IM)(NCvC)-624-03/2021) and R9 (W-02(IM)(NCvC)-625-03/2021). Decision of high court judge is affirmed. With regard to the cross-appeal (in R9: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-625-03/2021), we also find there is no merit in this cross-appeal. Therefore the cross-appeal is also dismissed. This is the costs that we award: For R8 (W-02(IM)(NCvC)-624-03/2021) and R9 (W-02(IM)(NCvC)-625-03/2021), we award costs of RM10,000.00 for each appeal to the respondent. And for the cross appeal (in R9: W-02(IM)(NCvC)-625-03/2021), we award costs of RM3,000.00 as agreed by both parties.”

Accordingly, do get in touch with us at admin@luibhullar.com for any queries regarding this Write-Up.


Image by Pexels from Pixabay

9,706 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page