‘Princess Cove’ suit must go to trial, rules Court of Appeal

 

The Princess Cove luxury apartments in Johor Bahru were developed by R&F Development Sdn Bhd.

JOHOR BAHRU: The Court of Appeal has unanimously set aside summary judgment entered by the High Court against a developer in a suit brought by 144 buyers of luxury condominium units here.

Allowing the developer’s appeal, the court ruled that a full trial was necessary to determine whether R&F Development Sdn Bhd, the developer of the Princess Cove luxury apartments, had breached the sale and purchase agreements (SPAs) entered with the buyers.

In a brief oral judgment, Justice Nantha Balan said the High Court must first hear the testimony of witnesses before it could conclude whether the developer’s unilateral amendment of the development plans from Phase 1 to Phases 1A and 1B after the SPAs were signed amounted to a breach of contract.

The three-member panel, which included Justices Supang Lian and Ahmad Zaidi, also awarded costs of RM18,000 to the developer.

Tommy Thomas appeared for the developer while N G Vinod represented the buyers.

The buyers had applied to the Johor Bahru High Court for summary judgment under Orders 14A and 33 of the Rules of Court 2012.

They contended that there were no issues requiring a full trial after the developer admitted to amending the development plans without the buyers’ consent subsequent to signing the SPAs.

In 2021, Judicial Commissioner Evrol Mariette Peters granted the buyers summary judgment.

She held that the unilateral amendment made by the developer had deprived the buyers of liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) as the full certificate of completion and compliance was only issued a year later.

In her decision, Peters had rejected the developer’s contention that it had used its construction expertise and knowledge to separate the works into Phases 1A and 1B, and that it could not be expected to seek approval from each and every purchaser given the magnitude of the project.

In her judgment, Peters said: “These were, in my view, irrelevant considerations (as to) whether there was a breach of the SPA, as the determination of that issue is for the court.”

“The fact of the matter was that the defendant had admitted to unilaterally amending the development plan from Phase 1 to Phases 1A and 1B. Regardless of its justification for doing so, this amounted to a breach of terms of the SPAs,” she added.

She also agreed with the buyers that the developer had only delivered vacant possession for Phase 1A instead of for the entire Phase 1 as stipulated in the SPA. - FMT