JCW

[LAD- Ang Ming Lee issue- Estoppel] Justin acted for the Defendant in relation to a claim for LAD against the Defendant as the developer based on the Federal Court case of Ang Ming Lee. The Court held amongst others as follows : (i) The preliminary objection that the defendant's application is premised on Order 18 rule 19(1) (a) or (b) or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 is dismissed where each limb is disjunctive and where under paragraph (a) the Court will look at the pleadings only and for other paragraphs, the Affidavits will also be looked at. (ii) Distinguished Ang Ming Lee based on the crucial fact that the request for extension of time was made after the commencement of the project and the execution of the sale and purchase agreements; (iii) In contradistinction with Ang Ming Lee, in this case, the defendant obtained approval from the Housing Controller for the extension of time from 36 months to 48 months  for the delivery of vacant possession and completion of common facilities for The Link 2 @ Bukit Jalil housing development project (iv) Further reinforced the case Alpine Return Sdn Bhd v Matthew Ng Hock Sing and the doctrine of estoppel therein, where estoppel should apply herein based on the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendants before or after the execution of the SPAs, where parties acted based on the extended period and the period of 36 months never featured in the relationship of parties before Ang Ming Lee. Therefore, it would be extremely unjust for the defendants to claim for vacant possession within 36 months  (v) Limitation of 6 years under Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 has also set in where cause of action would have arisen when the plaintiffs signed the SPAs in 2014 as this is the date of the alleged breach and the suit was filed in 2021 i.e. 7 years later