JCW

[CCC , vacant possession, LAD & force majeure] Justin & Chooi Peng were the counsel for the Appellant in this case. The Court of Appeal inter-alia held that vacant possession is not synonymous with the right of occupation where, amongst others : (i)The High Court found that it was the obligation of the appellant to ensure the availability of permanent access road, the mains for the electricity supply and the water supply to connect them to the shop office (‘essential amenities’) and the CCC was issued to the respondent before the appellant could deliver vacant possession of the shop office. (ii)The definition of the manner of vacant possession was clearly defined in cl 13.2 of the SPA, which stated that upon issuance of a certificate by the first defendant’s architect certifying that the construction of the shop office had duly competed, the purchaser having paid all monies payable under the SPA and having performed and observed all terms and conditions on the plaintiff under the SPA, the first defendant shall let the plaintiff into possession of the shop office, however, such possession shall not give the plaintiff, the right to occupy and the plaintiff shall not occupy the shop office or to make any alterations additions or otherwise to the said shop office until such time as the CCC for the office shop was issued. (iii) Vacant possession and the issuance of the CCC under the SPA were totally separate events and catered for different situations. There was no statutory prohibition against the segregation of these two events. The Court of Appeal also held that the main contractor’s restructuring exercise were not force majeure events and not beyond the Appellant’s control