PUTRAJAYA: A legal practitioner today hailed the recent landmark Federal Court ruling as a significant step toward fairness in the real-estate sector.
Lawyer Leonard Yeoh said the recent judgment would bring a balanced approach to disputes in property development arising from the 2020 Ang Ming Lee (AML) ruling.
In the AML case, the apex court ruled that the minister could not give the Controller of Housing the authority under Regulation 11(3) of the Housing Development Regulations 1989 (HDR 1989) to extend a property completion period from 36 months to 42 or more, without buyer consent.
The 36-month term applied to strata-titled properties, while the term for landed properties was 24 months.
However, the court did not clarify if its decision on the extension of time (EOT) granted to the developer after failing to complete the project according to the sales and purchase agreement (SPA), should apply to future agreements only or past ones as well.
In today's proceedings, a five-member bench led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim ruled that housebuyers could no longer make financial claims against developers for properties that were granted EOT before 2020.
Yeoh, who has extensive experience in property disputes, said some housebuyers had taken advantage following the AML decision by challenging developers, even though they were aware of the completion dates when they booked or signed the SPA for their homes.
"The law must be fair as the housebuyers suffered no loss whatsoever, but found a loophole to enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of property developers.
"This latest decision is very fair and balanced, as it ensures that no one takes advantage of the law at the expense of others.
"By applying the AML ruling prospectively, it will also ensure that property developers comply with the law on a level playing field," he said.
The top court unanimously ruled that the AML in 2020, which had caused issues for housing developers despite them receiving EOT before the landmark ruling, would apply to future cases only and not past ones.
The court said homebuyers were restricted from challenging or seeking compensation for delays that were approved before the AML decision, and they must accept the extensions granted to developers prior to that ruling.