THE next time you take vacant possession (VP) of your new home, you may want to thoroughly check that the property is indeed what you paid for. And if it is not exactly what was specified in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), it would be best not to commence any work on it, especially if you plan to turn to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims for recourse.
On Feb 10, the Federal Court made a landmark ruling on the scope of and powers of this tribunal, stating that it can only decide on claims against what was expressly stipulated in the SPA, and not based on the purchaser’s expectations or what was displayed in the developer’s showroom.
THE introduction of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims (Tribunal) in 2002 was a much celebrated measure by the Parliament to better protect the interes.
Faber Union(1) is good law.
In total, there were seven appeals before the Federal Court by purchasers and housing developers. The key question that the court considered was where there is a delay in the delivery of vacant possession, does the date for the calculation of liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) begin on the date of the payment of the booking fee or on the date of the sale and purchase agreement (SPA)?(2)
This article refers to the appeals pertaining to
GJH Avenue Sdn Bhd.(3)
GJH Avenue
The
GJH Avenue appeals comprised three appeals by purchasers of units of bungalows under a Schedule G statutory contract as prescribed under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations (HDR) 1989. One of the bungalow units is known as Unit Number L274/PT Number 5415.
PUTRAJAYA (Feb 10): The Federal Court here today allowed the appeal by a Danga Bay housing project developer in Johor to quash the compensatory award given by the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims to a Singaporean house buyer.
A three-member bench comprising Federal Court judges Puan Sri Zaleha Yusof, Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang allowed Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd (CGDB) s appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal s decision in dismissing its judicial review to quash the award given by the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims.
The court ordered the respondent, Ho Chee Kian, to pay RM30,000 in costs.
Wednesday, 23 Dec 2020 09:50 AM MYT
BY IDA LIM
Based on analysis of the data on October 19, 45 per cent of the room rental property listings in the Klang Valley already outrightly rejected Indian tenants. Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 23 Malaysia has no law that specifically addresses racial discrimination between individuals, a lawyer said in a forum on the issue of ethnic Indians being rejected by potential landlords in the country.
Lawyer Syahredzan Johan said that the Federal Constitution’s Article 8(2) that prohibits racial discrimination, among others, has been decided by the Malaysian courts to only apply to situations involving the government and an individual, instead of between two private citizens.