Not so. In SEA Housing Corporation Sdn Bhd vs Lee Poh Choo [1982] 2 MLJ 212, the Federal Court explained that the objective of Act 118 is “to protect the interest of the purchasers”.Five years later, under Act A1289, Parliament finally took the cue from the judiciary and inserted the important words “the protection of the interest of purchasers” into the long title of Act 118.
There is a provision in the law that has since its inception been perceived as favouring developers and victimising purchasers. That provision is Regulation 11 of the Housing Development Regulations 1989, which states as follows: What is the flaw in this provision? The answer was given by the Federal Court on Nov 26 in its 42-page judgment in a landmark case known as Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar & Pengawal Perumahan.
By a letter dated Nov 17, 2015, the minister granted a 12-month extension, thus allowing the developer 48 months to deliver vacant possession. The Court of Appeal held that regulation 11 is not ultra vires Act 118. However, it held that the letter of approval of extension was not signed by the Controller, thus “made without jurisdiction and was ultra vires the act, and that the order in the said letter was a nullity and of no effect”.
the G is pro developers and employers, subsidising them directly and indirectly with ridiculous policy directives
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: malaymail - 🏆 1. / 86 Read more »
Source: staronline - 🏆 4. / 75 Read more »