PR1MA fails to strike out JB buyers’ claim for late delivery

 

The Court of Appeal ruled that the home buyers’ claim against PR1MA for late delivery of their units was ‘not obviously unsustainable’ to justify it being struck out without a full trial.

PUTRAJAYA: Perbadanan Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia (PR1MA) has failed to strike out a claim for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) brought by home buyers in Johor Bahru, after the Court of Appeal ruled the case must go to full trial.

On Thursday, a three-member bench dismissed the statutory body’s appeal with costs, despite the existence of a settlement agreement entered with 111 home buyers of units at Residensi PR1MA Tebrau.

Justice Che Ruzima Ghazali, who chaired the panel, said the home buyers’ claim was not “obviously unsustainable” and that the Johor Bahru High Court did not err when dismissing PR1MA’s striking out application.

“(Issues surrounding) the settlement agreement shall be heard by way of full trial,” Che Ruzima said when delivering the panel’s unanimous ruling.

Also on the bench were Justices Azman Abdullah and Azmi Ariffin.

Lawyers Syafiqah Shafie, Danish Shahrir and Intan Maisarah Khir appeared for the home buyers.

PR1MA was represented by Shahrysham Kamran, Ahmad Syiimir Suffian and Farah Syazwin Azman.

PR1MA, established to develop affordable housing, had contended that the home buyers were prevented from bringing the LAD claim as they had undertaken not to do so in the agreement, and accepted part payment of the settement sum.

The buyers, however, disputed the agreement, saying it violated the provisions of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966.

They also said they were not properly informed of the contents of the agreement – prepared by PR1MA – prior to signing it, and that their payment had been made on a “without prejudice” basis.

“The position of the plaintiffs (home buyers) is that the undertaking ought to be considered in contra proferentem against the defendants (PR1MA) who prepared the forms,” they said in their statement of claim.

Under the contra proferentem rule, an ambiguous clause in a contract may be interpreted in a manner which disfavours the party who prepared the document.

The appeal arose after the High Court, in August 2022, dismissed PR1MA’s application to strike out the buyers’ LAD claim.

In a written judgment issued in January last year, Justice Noor Hisham Ismail said:

“The questions whether there was a ‘mutual understanding’ between the parties that the LAD payment and undertaking was for the purpose of a full and final settlement of the late delivery issue will remain a question of fact that can only be resolved through proper hearing.”

The judge also questioned whether the Federal Court’s ruling in the landmark PJD Regency Sdn Bhd case, handed down three years ago, would apply to purchasers under the PR1MA scheme given the “peculiar nature” of the PR1MA Act 2012.

“(PR1MA) argued that the PJD case is not relevant since no booking fee (was) paid by the (home buyers).

“A glance to the letter of offer to purchase and acceptance for the properties would confirm that there was no payment involved during the initial stage,” Noor Hisham said.

The judge said the issue can only be resolved at trial “through mature considerations on the facts and relevant laws”. - FMT