Q: What is Schedule H?
Schedule H is a pivotal statutory agreement governing the payment structure for developers based on stages of completion during housing projects.
In the recent case of Vignesh Naidu A/L Kuppusamy Naidu v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd [2023], the Court of Appeal highlighted several crucial points regarding Schedule H and its implications under the HDA 1966:
Protection of Home Buyers: The HDA 1966 stands as a cornerstone of social legislation aimed at safeguarding the interests of home buyers.
Nullification of Extension of Time (EOT): Following the Federal Court’s decision in Ang Ming Lee v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan & Kerajaan Tempatan [2020], the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that any extension of time (EOT) granted by the Housing Controller is invalid. The statutory 36-month period cannot be waived or altered by administrative discretion.
Timely Vacant Possession: Housing developments governed by Schedule H must deliver vacant possession within 36 months, as stipulated by the HDA.
Retrospective Application: The principles established in Ang Ming Lee are to be applied retrospectively, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation and application across past and future cases.
Estoppel and Statutory Rights: The doctrine of estoppel cannot override statutory rights. Home buyers cannot be compelled to waive their rights to claim Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) by accepting token sums from developers, as such agreements would undermine the protective intent of the HDA.
Limitation Period: The statute of limitations for pursuing claims under Schedule H begins from the time of supposed vacant possession, extending over a period of 6 years.
Legal Remedies: A writ action remains the appropriate legal recourse for home buyers seeking to enforce their rights to claim LAD under Schedule H, ensuring proper compensation for project delays.
Understanding these facets of Schedule H is crucial for home buyers navigating property transactions under the HDA 1966, providing clarity on their rights and legal avenues for recourse in case of contractual disputes.
Comments