JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] The question at the heart of this appeal is a short one, although it is of some importance to the housing industry. A purchaser takes delivery of vacant possession. He is paid liquidated ascertained damages ("LAD") for the developer's delay, and he signs a letter recording that the payment is in full and final settlement of all his claims. Years later, decisions of the courts show that, had he fought the matter out, he would have recovered more. May he then come back and sue for the difference? Related questions arise as to the reach of the decision of the Federal Court in Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd And Other Appeals [2024] 6 MLRA 1; [2024] 5 MLJ 897; [2024] 8 CLJ 519; [2024] 6 AMR 813 ("Obata-Ambak"), the treatment of rebates in the computation of LAD, the application of PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor And Other Appeals [2021] 1 MLRA 506; [2021] 2 MLJ 60; [2021] 2 CLJ 441; [2021] 3 AMR 449 ("PJD Regency"), and whether vacant possession may validly be delivered on the strength of a Partial Certificate of Completion and Compliance (Borang F1).
[2] The appellant, Ekovest Capital Sdn Bhd, is the developer of the 'EkoCheras' mixed development in Kuala Lumpur. The respondents bought two residential parcels in it, Parcel J-20-11 ("the 1st Parcel") and Parcel J-27-01 ("the 2nd Parcel"). With leave granted on 27 August 2025, the appellant appeals against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur dated 6 January 2025. That decision dismissed the appellant's appeal in part, allowed the respondents' cross-appeal in part, and awarded the respondents balance LAD together with interest and costs, thereby varying the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") dated 27 July 2021.