1. ) MICHELLE TAN SHIN YI 2. ) ELAINE TAN SUE MAY 3. ) SHIRLEY TAN MIN HUEY v 1. ) IVORY INTERPOINT SDN BHD 2. ) TTDI KL METROPOLIS SDN BHD

wa-24ncvc-1348-03-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 August 2025 • WA-24NCvC-1348-03/2025

Catchwords

Conclusion [47] Based on the analysis above, this Court makes the following findings: (a) s38C of the COVID-19 Act does not apply to the Plaintiffs' SPA dated 25.11.2021 by virtue of s38C(4); (b) The KPKT approval dated 30.9.2022, to the extent it purports to grant relief to SPAs executed after 31.05.2021, is ultra vires and without legal effect; (c) The KPKT’s approval to exempt 304 days for the calculation of delivery of vacant possession of the parcels and common facilities of the development does not apply to the Plaintiffs’ SPA; (d) Even if s38C COVID-Act applied, only 37 days (25.11.2021 to 31.12.2021) could be excluded, not the full 304 days; (e) The original contractual delivery date of 24.11.2025 for vacant possession of the parcel remains valid and binding. [48] 'A declaration can be used to ascertain and determine the legal rights of parties or to determine a point of law' as stated in the case of Brett Andrew Macnamara v Kam Lee Kuan [2008] 2 MLJ 450 at p 459. For that, this Court hereby declares that: (a) The COVID-19 extension of time of 304 days approved by KPKT vide its letter dated 30.9.2022 does not apply to the SPA dated 25.11.2021 between the Plaintiffs and Defendants by virtue of s38C(4) of the Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Amendment) Act 2022; (b) The date for delivery of vacant possession of Parcel No. B-38-02 and completion of common facilities by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs shall be 24.11.2025, being 48 months from the date of the sale and purchase agreement dated 25.11.2021; (c) The 2nd Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ OS (Enclosure 12) is allowed. The 2nd Defendant is struck out as a party to this OS proceedings; (d) The 1st Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs' costs of RM60,000, subject to allocator, for this OS. The Plaintiff is to pay the 2nd Defendant RM10,000 for Enclosure 12, subject to allocator.

Judges (1)

Roz Mawar binti Rozain Delivered

Parties (5)

IVORY INTERPOINT Sdn Bhd Respondent TTDI KL METROPOLIS Sdn Bhd Respondent Elaine Tan Sue May Applicant Michelle Tan Shin Yi Applicant Shirley Tan Min Huey Applicant

Case Significance

1. ) MICHELLE TAN SHIN YI 2. ) ELAINE TAN SUE MAY 3. ) SHIRLEY TAN MIN HUEY v... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 25, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncvc-1348-03-2025). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.

Key issues: Conclusion [47] Based on the analysis above, this Court makes the following findings: (a) s38C of the COVID-19 Act does not apply to the Plaintiffs' SPA dated 25.11.2021 by virtue of s38C(4);.

What was the outcome of 1. ) MICHELLE TAN SHIN YI 2. ) ELAINE TAN SUE MAY 3. ) SHIRLEY TAN MIN HUEY v...?

1. ) MICHELLE TAN SHIN YI 2. ) ELAINE TAN SUE MAY 3. ) SHIRLEY TAN MIN HUEY v... is a High Court decision dated August 25, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncvc-1348-03-2025)