Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah is a landmark Federal Court decision that clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims and reinforces the doctrine of estoppel by conduct in the context of statutory housing contracts.
1. Case Information
- Court: Federal Court, Putrajaya.
- Citation: [2022] 5 MLRA 38.
- Parties: Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd (Appellant/Developer) v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (1st Respondent/Tribunal) & Ho Chee Soon (2nd Respondent/Purchaser).
2. Background and Facts
The Appellant is the developer of the Country Garden Danga Bay project in Johor. In 2013, the 2nd Respondent (the Purchaser) entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) to purchase a condominium unit for approximately RM1.6 million.
The dispute centered on the balcony of the unit. The Purchaser alleged that during the project launch, the developer’s agents represented (via a miniature display model and brochures) that the unit would have a covered balcony. However, upon delivery of vacant possession, the Purchaser discovered the unit had an open balcony.
The Purchaser filed a claim with the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Purchaser, awarding RM50,000 in compensation. The Tribunal invoked its power under Section 16Y(2)(e) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 to “amend” the SPA specifications, holding that the display model was binding. The High Court and Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
3. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction: Does Section 16N(2) of the Act preclude the Tribunal from hearing claims based on expectations from a display model rather than the express terms of the SPA?.
- Statutory Power: Does the Tribunal have the power to vary or set aside a contract based on collateral representations/warranties outside the written SPA?.
- Estoppel: Is a purchaser estopped from claiming they received the “wrong unit” after they have accepted vacant possession and conducted renovations?.
4. Court’s Findings and Reasoning
A. Strict Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The Federal Court emphasized that the Tribunal is a creature of statute and can only act within the “four walls” of its enabling legislation. Under Section 16N(2), the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to claims arising from the Sale and Purchase Agreement. The Court held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters falling outside the SPA, such as collateral contracts, representations, or warranties (e.g., showroom display models).
B. Misapplication of Section 16Y(2)(e)
The Court clarified that the Tribunal’s power to vary or set aside a contract under Section 16Y(2)(e) is intended to ensure compliance with the statutory terms of the Act (specifically Schedule H). It is a power of rectification, not a license to add features to the SPA based on external marketing materials.
C. Estoppel by Conduct (“Approbate and Reprobate”)
The Court found that the Purchaser was estopped by conduct. By signing the handover forms, accepting vacant possession, and subsequently renovating the unit, the Purchaser exercised clear rights of ownership. The law does not allow a party to “approbate and reprobate”—meaning one cannot “blow hot and cold” by accepting the property as an owner while simultaneously claiming the contract for that property is invalid or incorrect.
5. Summary of Decision
The Federal Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal’s award. It ruled that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by looking at the display model instead of the SPA and that the Purchaser’s own conduct (accepting and renovating the unit) barred him from later challenging the unit’s specifications.
6. Significance
- Finality of the SPA: Reaffirms that in statutory housing governed by the HDA, the written SPA is the primary source of rights, and developers are not strictly bound by showroom models unless they are part of the contract.
- Protection of Developers: Prevents “afterthought” claims by buyers who have already accepted and utilized the property.
- Tribunal Constraints: Clearly demarcates the boundary between a Tribunal (limited to the contract) and a Court of Law (which can hear broader tortious or collateral claims).
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
