Icon City Development Sdn Bhd v Lee Kean Hwa & Ors

Appellant(s): Icon City Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain

• YA Dato Rhodzariah binti Bujang
• YA Datuk Hanipah Binti Farikullah
• YA Dato' Lee Swee Seng

• The case originated from the purchasers' application for summary judgment claiming liquidated damages (LD) for the appellant developer's late delivery of vacant possession of stratified commercial/residential units (SOVOs).
• The appellant and the 62 respondents (purchasers) had entered into Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) for the purchase of these units.
• The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of the SPA clauses, specifically the commencement date for calculating the 42-month period for delivery of vacant possession, which directly impacted the calculation of LD.

• Whether the 42-month period for delivery of vacant possession should be calculated from the expiry of the stipulated "Period of Approval" or from the actual date the requisite approvals were obtained within that period.
• Whether the calculation of the delivery period should begin from the date of the first/original approval of the building plans or the date of the last amendment, given that "Building Plans" was defined to include amendments.
• Whether the Federal Court should entertain a new question of law regarding the calculation of liquidated damages based on "such part of the Purchase Price that has been paid" when it was not part of the leave questions.

• The Federal Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the High Court and Court of Appeal's decisions to grant summary judgment to the purchasers.
• The Court held that the 42-month period for vacant possession commenced from the date of the *first* approval of the building plans, not the expiry of the approval period or the date of the last amended building plan, applying a "Business Common Sense" interpretation and the *contra proferentem* rule against the developer.
• The Court declined to entertain the new question of law regarding LD calculation based on partial payment, emphasizing that Federal Court appeals are confined to granted leave questions and that such an interpretation would be unconscionable as it would reward the developer for its own breach.