High Court Rules the Developer’s CCC was Unreliable and Vacant Possession was Never Validly Delivered for Poor Workmanship

In Anuar bin Mahmood & Faridah binte Ahmad v Johor Land Berhad [2026] CLJU 389, Singaporean purchasers succeeded in their claim against the licensed housing developer for serious construction defects in a double-storey terrace house in Bandar Dato’ Onn, Johor Bahru. The property, purchased under a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 9 February 2012 was delivered with latent defects (notably dangerous electrical wiring laid on the floor and widespread waterproofing failures) that rendered it uninhabitable for over 10 years. The court held the developer liable for breach of contract and negligence, awarding the plaintiffs damages plus 5% interest and costs. No aggravated or exemplary damages were awarded, and the developer’s counterclaim/set-off was dismissed.

Background of the Case

• The parties entered into the SPA on 9.2.2012. Vacant possession (VP) was due on 8.2.2014 (24 months from SPA).
• Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC/Form F) was issued on 13.4.2014; VP notice was sent by registered post on 17.6.2014.
• Shortly after, the second plaintiff emailed photographs of defects (including miscoloured tiles). A joint inspection followed.
• First rectification attempt (June 2014): Developer’s contractor hacked almost all floor tiles, exposing latent electrical wiring defects on the floor, then abandoned the works incomplete.
• Second rectification attempt (6–14.10.2014): Contractor worked only 8 days; plaintiffs halted works upon seeing the plan to cover exposed electrical wiring with cement instead of re-routing it safely.
• Plaintiffs refused further rectification in January/February 2015, citing the developer’s “incapability.” The property remained vacant and uninhabitable for over 10 years.

Court Rulings

High Court

• No valid VP delivered: The CCC was unreliable—the issuing architect (SD2) could not produce site inspection reports, G1–G21 forms, or even name the site clerk supervising 217 units. The house was not constructed or completed in accordance with the SPA and was not fit for occupation (Clause 23(1) SPA). The deeming provision (Clause 23(3)) could not validate defective VP. For LAD quantification only, the court used 12.2.2015 as the operative date.
• Breach of Clause 13 SPA and implied terms: The developer failed to build in a good and workmanlike manner using proper materials and ensure the house was reasonably fit for human habitation (Hancock v B W Brazier [1966] 2 All ER 901, adopted in SEA Housing Corp Sdn Bhd v Lee Poh Choo [1982] 2 MLJ 31 and later cases). Key defects included non-compliant electrical wiring (undersized, non-waterproof, laid on floor, no proper earthing) and systemic waterproofing failures due to original poor workmanship.
• Defect liability (Clause 25 SPA): The 20.6.2014 email constituted valid written notice. The developer failed to rectify within 30 days. The plaintiffs’ refusal of further rectification was reasonable due to legitimate safety concerns.
• Negligence: The developer owed and breached a duty of care; damages were assessed within the contractual framework.
• Damages awarded (partial success):
  • Special damages: Repair costs RM339,700 (2025 quotation) + LAD RM63,594.52 + loss of use/rental RM250,000 + consultant fees RM8,000.
  • General damages: Distress & inconvenience RM30,000.
  • Total: RM691,294.52 + 5% interest p.a. + costs RM150,000 to plaintiffs.
  • No aggravated/exemplary damages; developer’s utility deposit counterclaim/set-off rejected.

Key Takeaways

1. CCC is not conclusive: Courts will scrutinise the verification process behind it. Poor supervision records can render the CCC unreliable, exposing developers to full liability.
2. Safety trumps access: Purchasers’ refusal to allow rectification is reasonable (and does not breach Clause 25(2)) where genuine safety risks (e.g., electrical hazards) exist.
3. Purposive protection under the HDA: Malaysian courts continue to tilt the scales in favour of homebuyers given the bargaining imbalance (PJD Regency and Sentul Raya principles reinforced).
4. Latent defects and long-term uninhabitability: Buyers can recover substantial loss-of-use damages even without proven rental contracts; systemic project-wide defects strengthen the claim.
5. Practical lesson for developers: Proper electrical routing, waterproofing, and documented supervision are non-negotiable. Failed rectification attempts can be fatal to the defence.