Xtreme Meridian Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor

Court of Appeal · · Civil Procedure, Contract Law

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Xtreme Meridian Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date22 April 2025
Date Uploaded1 July 2025
Legal TopicsCivil Procedure, Contract Law
Parties

Appellant(s): Xtreme Meridian Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

  • Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah
  • Muhammad Hariz Bin Md Azman
Bench
  • YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
  • YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
  • YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
Facts & Background
  • The appellant, a housing developer, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") with the second respondent for a condominium unit, which included a 24-month Defect Liability Period.
  • The SPA stipulated that if the developer failed to rectify defects within 30 days of notice, the purchaser could carry out the works and recover costs.
  • The second respondent issued defect notices and, upon the appellant's failure to rectify, proceeded with repairs and lodged a claim with the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal"), which awarded a sum for rectification costs and unsupplied cabinets.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Tribunal's interpretation of the SPA, specifically if the "cabinet/vanity top" clause meant the appellant was obligated to provide both items.
  • Whether the High Court failed to consider the appellant's argument that the defects were caused by the second respondent's renovation works.
  • Whether the High Court erred in accepting the second respondent's contractor's quotation as evidence for rectification costs without proof of payment.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the Tribunal had committed no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
  • The Court held that the defect liability period allowed the purchaser to file complaints within two years, and the appellant had an obligation to rectify defects, which it failed to do despite receiving proper notices.
  • The Court found no error in the Tribunal's interpretation of the SPA that the "forward slash" symbol in the "cabinet/vanity top" clause meant "and," thus requiring the appellant to provide both items, and upheld the reliance on the technical report for defect findings and costs.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!