[ad_1]
TAIPING: The High Court here vacated a housing court award of approximately RM90,000 for defects to three two-story home buyers.
Judicial Commissioner K Muniandy said that the presiding judge had acted outside his jurisdiction and was influenced by the plight of home buyers, while the developer’s right was circumvented.
“Doing so smells of irrationality as it lacks any plausible justification,” he said in his lawsuit to allow the judicial review of developer First Success Sdn Bhd to nullify the award given last year.
Muniandy also ordered the three buyers, Ng Tiong Ruen, Chan Cheng Yong, and Lim Chin Yee, to pay RM3,000 each to the developer as costs.
The three, who bought the units in a plan in Gerik, have filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
They had previously filed a complaint with the court for the breach of a purchase agreement entered into with the developer in January 2017.
The developer responded that the buyers had not given any notice of defects as required in the agreement before filing a lawsuit in court.
The developer said the workers and their representative visited the three facilities in December 2018 to carry out repair work, but were prevented due to a work stoppage order issued.
Muniandy said the president of the court had instructed a technical inspection team to investigate the defects and, based on an evaluation report, awarded Ng RM29,800, Chan RM30,000 and Lim RM28,600 in March last year.
Muniandy said that the court’s decision-making process was plagued with multiple flaws and inconsistencies, which had hurt the applicant or developer in this case.
“The applicant has been successful in demonstrating procedural irregularity and irrationality, as well as illegality in the decision-making process.
“It must be reiterated that the president had carried out the procedure according to the parties as principal.
“The bottom line is that if the agreement through mediation has failed, it is only appropriate for the court to continue hearing the case through oral testimony, which is subject to cross-examination by the applicant,” he said.
Muniandy said a technical team could have been ordered to inspect and report the defects once the buyers had heard their complaints and the court made a decision.
“That would be consistent with the fact-finding investigation conducted by the court at all important times,” he said.
He said that issuing ex parte rulings without the proper and adequate presentation of the parties that were not represented by lawyers did not bode well in proceedings of this nature.
