Judicial commissioner K Muniandy said the tribunal chairman had acted outside his jurisdiction and was swayed by the plight of house buyers, while the right of the developer was sidestepped.
“To do so, smacks of unreasonableness as it is devoid of any plausible justification,” he said in his judgment to allow developer First Success Sdn Bhd’s judicial review to quash the award made last year.
Muniandy also ordered the three buyers – Ng Tiong Ruen, Chan Cheng Yong and Lim Chin Yee – to pay RM3,000 each to the developer as costs.
The three, who purchased the units at a scheme in Gerik, have filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
They had earlier filed a complaint to the tribunal on the breach of a sale and purchase agreement entered with the developer in January 2017.
The developer replied that buyers had failed to give any notice of defects as required under the agreement before pursuing a claim with a tribunal.
The developer said workers and its representative paid a visit to the three premises in December 2018 to carry out repair work, but were prevented in view of a stop-work order issued.
Muniandy said the tribunal chairman had instructed a technical inspection team to investigate the defects and based on an evaluation report, awarded Ng RM29,800, Chan RM30,000 and Lim RM28,600 in March last year.
Muniandy said the tribunal’s decision-making process was fraught with multiple flaws and inconsistencies, which had prejudiced the applicant, or developer in this case.
“The applicant has been successful in demonstrating procedural impropriety and unreasonableness as well as illegality in the decision-making process.
“It has to be iterated that the chairman had conducted the proceeding with settlement by parties as foremost.
“What is paramount is that if the settlement via mediation has failed, it is only proper for the tribunal to get on with the hearing of the case via oral testimony, which is subject to cross-examination by the applicant,” he said.
Muniandy said a technical team to inspect and report on the defects could have been ordered once the buyers had ventilated their grievances and a finding was made by the tribunal.
“That would be consonant with the fact finding inquiry by the tribunal at all material times,” he said.
He said making ex-parte rulings without proper and adequate submission by parties who were not represented by lawyers did not augur well in proceedings of this nature.