Lum Kok Kiong & Co 林国强法律事务所

23/06/2025

《爱从自己开始》节目预告

林国强律师 谈 没有工作合约，就无法获得法律保障，这是真的吗？

6月24号（二）下午2pm到直播帖子留言与主播 邓佩银 互动吧：）

#爱从自己开始 #资讯脉动全天放送 #越听越爱

24/05/2022

It is common that purchasers of housing development will visit the showroom and see the display model of the unit. More likely than not, the purchaser will decide to purchase based on the specification of the display model. What if the display model and unit described in the sale and purchase agreement is different? Can the purchaser file a complaint at the Tribunal for homebuyer claim against the Developer for unauthorized change of specification?

In the recent decision of Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn Bhd V Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor, the Federal Court discussed the issue of the purchaser’s entitlement of the specification based on the display model and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims.

The decision of the Federal Court
1. The Purchaser claimed that he was given the wrong unit, namely a unit with an open balcony; when he in fact was entitled to a covered balcony. However, from the evidence, the Federal Court found that it was an undisputed fact that the specification for a covered balcony was not a term of the SPA. The Purchaser relied on the display model which he alleged carried units with a covered balcony which he identified as the type of unit he wanted to buy to the sales representative.

2. The award delivered by the Tribunal was against the provision of the SPA and also contradicted with the finding in the Technical Inspection Report. As the provision of covered balcony was not in the SPA and yet the Tribunal decided to allow the Purchaser’s claim.

3. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the SPA. There has to be a SPA for a claim or complaint to be made under the Act.

4. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction over matters following outside the SPA in the form of collateral contracts, representations, or warranties.

5. The Federal Court opined that the Tribunal was wrong in taking into consideration the display model instead of the SPA.

6. The Federal Court was of the considered view that based on section 16 of the Act, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Purchaser’s complaint on this covered balcony issue, which was not based on the SPA.

7. The Purchaser cannot be allowed to, on the one hand said that he got the wrong unit but on the other hand accepted delivery of vacant possession and renovated it.

8. The Federal Court is of the view that the Tribunal was wrong when it failed to appreciate that the Purchaser had affirmed the contract as it stood on its terms which did not have a term for a covered balcony, when the Purchaser accepted delivery and renovated the said unit.

Conclusion

9. The Federal Court unanimously allowed the Developer’s appeal with costs of RM30,000.00 and the Tribunal’s award that was tainted with illegality was set aside.

10. Purchaser ought to check the description of the property stated in the sale and purchase agreement before signing the same.

11. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim based on misrepresentation, purchasers ought to know the nature of their claim before proceeding to the Tribunal.

The full article was featured in Nanyang Siang Pau which can been seen in the link below: -

南洋商报 Nanyang Siang Pau

买家声称他被错误地分配了单位，即一个开放式阳台的单位，但他实际上有权获得一个带遮盖阳台的单位。

02/04/2022

If a person who is not a registered estate agent, introduced a piece of land to a successful buyer, can he/she claim the commission for such introduction?

It is not uncommon for a layman to introduce property to a potential buyer. The issue is whether the layman who is not a registered estate agent, is entitled to charge a fee for such an introduction.

In the case of MATAD SDN BHD v. NG CHEE KEONG, the Court of Appeal discussed this issue.

Issue

The broader question that this appeal raises is the meaning of 'estate agency practice' as defined by the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 ("the Act"). The narrower and immediate question at hand is whether the plaintiff in the suit may recover the commission promised him by the defendant.

Decision

[1] Words such as "practise" and "carry on business" point, not to an isolated act, but to a course of conduct. The section also uses the term "estate agent". It is thus clear that the Act requires an estate agency relationship to exist between the parties, and in the absence of such a relationship, the Act has no application.

[2] However, what appears to be an isolated act may amount to estate agency practice if evidence of a system of such acts is established to the satisfaction of the court.

Conclusion

1. In deciding whether the Act was breached or the validity of payment arrangement between the layman and the successful buyer, the Court will look at the evidence of whether a layman practise estate business as an estate agent and/or whether there is any evidence of a system of such act.

2. If the payment arrangement is a one-off transaction which no evidence of practicing of estate business and/or system of such, the payment arrangement may not be held invalid.

https://property.enanyang.my/%e6%84%8f%e8%a7%81/%e4%bf%83%e6%88%90%e5%9c%9f%e5%9c%b0%e4%ba%a4%e6%98%93-%e4%bb%8b%e7%bb%8d%e4%ba%ba%e5%8f%af%e5%88%86%e4%bd%a3/?fbclid=IwAR2aYHW0-XQBLp0jI_FDLrBD6CwalxWGGd3UPmxtWyC69ZFGZC2Ac-7o8nQ

促成土地交易，非注册地产代理这个外行人，是否有权就此类介绍收取费用。

02/03/2022

In Malaysia, It is not uncommon that the Vendor in a sale and purchase agreement elect to be unrepresented by a lawyer to save their costs.

However, what would be the risk of doing so?

https://property.enanyang.my/%e6%84%8f%e8%a7%81/%e4%b9%b0%e5%8d%96%e4%ba%a7%e4%b8%9a%e5%8f%af%e8%81%98%e5%90%8c%e4%b8%80%e5%90%8d%e5%be%8b%e5%b8%88%ef%bc%9f/?fbclid=IwAR294svuBYcw-5jk-Cji5_xNZd6Gs503z2iIZu0K-daASw0lrlRjhZRm800

买卖产业聘请同一名律师会有什么风险？不请律师节省费用，会有何后果？

01/11/2021

Changes in the building plan; and whether the relevant parcel can be used for short stays as a hotel.

https://property.enanyang.my/%e6%84%8f%e8%a7%81/%e6%a5%bc%e5%b1%82%e5%a4%9a%e5%bb%ba%e4%b8%80%e5%8d%95%e4%bd%8d-%e5%8f%91%e5%b1%95%e5%95%86%e5%88%a4%e7%bd%9a/?fbclid=IwAR2H_Wct6r20y4kGpZqCSZ7Y9tW9464__cB8ZCalveVAQICyDgjxKLn19Zc

未经买家书面同意，发展商没有依照批准的建筑图来完成工程，买家有权终止买卖协议。

27/10/2021

The Developer’s Liability in respect of the Defect of Swimming Pool

https://property.enanyang.my/%e6%84%8f%e8%a7%81/%e6%b3%b3%e6%b1%a0%e7%bc%ba%e9%99%b7-%e5%8f%91%e5%b1%95%e5%95%86%e8%a6%81%e6%8b%85%e8%b4%a3/?fbclid=IwAR2Bu9QIRzJl-nzY2Z0vtOYVhrHqTiviSgKKS0Wa3DI8e-1RHEaQO5R6ufk

防水系统只在首3年见效，明显不够好，发展商须承担更大的法律责任。

26/10/2021

Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims cannot ascertain tortious claim

https://property.enanyang.my/%e6%84%8f%e8%a7%81/%e7%96%8f%e5%bf%bd%e7%b4%a2%e8%b5%94-%e4%bb%b2%e8%a3%81%e5%ba%ad%e6%97%a0%e6%9d%83%e5%ae%a1/?fbclid=IwAR30Mwe3-CRinZkDAFwS1ObDNDND0tiTSARQ4bEOekE-RmBdVAFWVc6tw64

仲裁庭的权限，仅限于基于购屋者与发展商之间签订的买卖协议所引起的索赔。

28/08/2021

https://www.enanyang.my/node/424324

The legality of settlement arrangement in respect of LAD and the extension of time granted by Housing Controller

在最近的高等法院判决Leong Keng Chiang v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd (“判决”)中，吉隆坡高等法院宣判了一项影响房地产行业各个利益相关者有关约定违约金（“LAD”）和解协议以及房屋管理部批准的工程期延长的有效性。

06/08/2021

The settlement of LAD and the validity of the EOT granted by Housing Controller