Condo buyer sues builder over vacant possession

The Star 19/04/2001 By K. Kasturi Dewi

A geophysicist, who is suing a developer for failing to deliver vacant possession of his condominium unit in Penang, claimed he was incurring expenses travelling from Singapore while waiting for his property to be handed over to him.

Neoh Khoon Lye, 46, a Malaysian residing in Singapore, said in his statement of claim that Trans-Intan Sdn Bhd had wrongfully and in breach of the terms of the sales and purchase agreement between him and the company, failed or neglected to give vacant possession of his unit on the 19th floor, Block D, Miami Green, Batu Ferringhi.

Neoh, represented by Daphne Choy, said this was despite him having paid the full purchase price of the unit minus the liquidated damages due to him by Trans-Intan for the delay of 431 days from the prescribed date of delivery of vacant possession on Dec 21, 1999 until the notice of vacant possession on Feb 23, this year.

Neoh also said subsequent to the execution of the agreement dated Sept 21, 1996, he had settled each and every demand for progressive payment by the company.

He claimed that as a result of the delay, he had instructed his solicitors to give notice that RM26,673.35 due to him in liquidated damages pursuant to Clause 22(2) of the agreement.

Neoh also said RM5,334.67 was due to him in liquidated damages pursuant to Clause 24(2) of the agreement for the delay in completion of the common facilities at the condominium project.

He claimed after setting off both the sums, he made out a cheque for RM8,427.15 being the final progressive payment to Trans-Intan less the liquidated damages due to him.

In its affidavit-in-reply, Trans-Intan, represented by Ong Wee Yen, said it had a right to deny Neoh vacant possession of his unit as he had failed to settle his outstanding progressive bill payment.

The company also said Neoh had no right to set off the amount as it was done unilaterally and at no time did the company agree to the setting off.

Trans-Intan added that Neoh's claim that he was entitled to set off the liquidated damages for the delay in completion of the common facilities was wrong as the compensation due under the particular clause was still uncertain and unliquidated.

The High Court fixed May 17 for hearing of Neoh's application for an order compelling Trans-Intan to deliver vacant possession.