Pemilik diarah bayar PR1MA ganti rugi

Johor High Court has ordered the owners of 86 residential units in Residensi Prima Tebrau to pay compensation and costs totaling RM15,000 to the 1Malaysia Public Housing Authority (PR1MA). The ruling comes after the court dismissed an earlier claim for additional compensation due to delays in handing over keys, which violated the existing settlement agreement.

Judge Wong Mee Ling ruled that each property owner must pay RM10,000 in compensation and RM5,000 in costs to PR1MA. The owners had previously entered into a settlement agreement with PR1MA for the compensation amount, but then filed a lawsuit for further compensation due to delays in delivering the keys. The court stated that once the parties fully comply with the terms of the agreement and benefit from it, they cannot unilaterally revoke or deviate from the compromise reached.

The court also emphasized that by accepting the settlement amount, the plaintiffs effectively waive any subsequent liability of the defendants (PR1MA). The ruling allows the property owners to continue pursuing their claims after receiving and enjoying the benefits of the agreement. Wong also dismissed a claim by a seventh property owner not part of the settlement agreement, stating that their claim would be barred by the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953.

The case involved determining six legal issues raised by the opposing parties. The dispute stemmed from a validly executed sale and purchase agreement (SPA) between PR1MA and the property owners from 2012 to 2015, which set a 54-month preparation period for the delivery of vacant possession and common facilities, as opposed to the standard 36-month period.

PR1MA filed a claim in 2021, alleging that the preparation period had been unjustifiably extended by the property management and should have been returned to the standard 36 months, as allowed under the Housing Development Management (Control and Tenancy) Regulations 1989. The court found that the extension of the preparation period was lawful and binding on the buyer, even with subsequent legal changes.

However, the court held that the 54-month preparation period established in the SPA remained valid and enforceable, despite the change in the law. The plaintiffs' attempt to replace the period with the standard 36 months retrospectively at a later date was not accepted by the court.