Back
2024 MarsdenLR 155
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
OOI CHENG HUAT @ OOI PENG HUAT & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD & OTHER CASES – Respondent
[Civil Suit Nos: BA-22C-43-10/2017 BA-22C-44-10/2017 BA-22C-45-10/2017 BA-22C-46-10/2017 BA-22C-47-10/2017 & BA-22C-49-11/2018]
The court ruled that housing developers must adhere to statutory obligations for quality and workmanship, and purchasers retain rights to claim damages for breaches, including rectification costs.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreements - The Plaintiffs claimed breaches by the Defendant concerning the quality and condition of six bungalows sold under various SPAs, alleging defects and forgery of signatures on defect rectification forms. The court found the Defendant liable for defects due to poor workmanship and materials, ruling that the statutory obligations were not satisfied. (Paras 1-127)
(B) Evidence - Forgery - The court determined that the Plaintiffs proved their signatures were forged, allowing them to contest the validity of defect rectification forms. (Paras 16-34)
(C) Damages - The court awarded damages for rectification costs and loss of use due to the Defendant's breaches, emphasizing the Plaintiffs' right to claim under the HDA. (Paras 72-112)
(D) Costs - The court awarded costs to the Plaintiffs, determining that the Defendant was liable for the majority of the claims made by the Plaintiffs. (Paras 121-123)
Key Points: - (!) HDA HDR framework governs purchaser protection and object of HDA. - (!) - (!) Reg 11(1), (1A), (1B) HDR and their application to SPAs; Court’s stance on applicability and statutory precedence. - (!) - (!) Court’s reasoning that plaintiffs in 43–45 & 47 were not required to plead forgery in SOCs and could rely on other evidence; balance of probabilities standard under s103 EA. - (!) - (!) Court’s factual finding that forged signatures were proven and that DRFs/FFs signed by forged signatures are not binding; weight given to police reports and testimonies. - (!) - (!) Analysis of alleged defects (patent/latent) and applicability of DLP; different interpretations of cl 25 and cl 27, with emphasis on "good and workmanlike" standard and Schedule 4th/Second Schedules. - (!) - (!) Patent defects criteria under SPAs and the interplay of Schedule I; conditions for patent defects and purchaser remedies. - (!) - (!) Jurisdiction and interpretation of clauses (DLP, cl 25, cl 27) and the object of HDA; rejection of the notion that expiry of DLP bars liability. - (!) - (!) CCC rejection and its effect; SUBBL vs. Statutory SPAs; courts reject CCC as absolute defence. - (!) - (!) Summary: damages, interest, and costs awarded; quantum of damages for defects (air conditioners) and rectification; costs allocation. - (!) - (!) Court encourages third-party indemnity/contribution against main contractor.
What is the scope of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) and HDR in relation to statutorily governed SPAs, and can purchasers rely on reg 11(1B) HDR to defeat liability for defects?
What is the proper approach to proving forged signatures on defect-related documents in the context of the 4 SPAs (Suits No 43–45 and 47), including whether expert handwriting evidence is required and the weight of such evidence?
What damages and remedies are recoverable for defects in the 6 bungalows, including rectification costs, loss of use/enjoyment, potential loss of rental, and the applicability of defect liability provisions (DLP) and Schedule I/Patent Defects, as well as the court’s approach to causation and quantum?
JUDGMENT
(After Trial)
A. Introduction
[1] This judgment arises from a joint trial (Trial) of the above six suits (6 Suits) filed by purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows built and sold (6 Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant), a housing developer.
[2] In these 6 Suits, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had breached various provisions of six Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows (6 SPAs) entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant [Alleged Defendant's Breaches (6 SPAs)]. The Alleged Defendant's Breaches (6 SPAs) concern novel legal issues regarding certain clauses in the 6 SPAs.
B. Background
[3] The 6 Suits are as follows:
(1) suit No BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Suit No 43) had been filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No 43)] against the Defendant with regard to a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 43)] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174772, Lot 70087, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1 December 2010 [SPA (Suit No 43)];
(2) suit No BA-22C-44-10/2017 (Suit No 44) was filed by the plaintiff company [Plaintiff (Suit No 44)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 44) ] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174763, Lot 70078, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 18 April 2012 [SPA (Suit No 44)];
(3) suit No BA-22C-45-10/2017 (Suit No 45) had been filed by the plaintiff [Plaintiff (Suit No 45)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No 45)] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174760, Lot 70075, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1 December 2010 [SPA (Suit No 45)];
(4) suit No BA-22C-46-10/2017 (Suit No 46) was filed by the plaintiff [Plaintiff (Suit No 46)] against the Defendant in respect of a two- storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No 46)] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174770, Lot 70085, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 22 April 2013 [SPA (Suit No 46)];
(5) suit No BA-22C-47-10/2017 (Suit No 47) had been filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No 47)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No 47)] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174771, Lot 70086, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 16 April 2012 [SPA (Suit No 47)]; and
(6) suit No BA-22C-49-11/2018 (Suit No 49) was filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No 49)] against the Defendant in respect of a two- storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No 49)] which was-
(a) built on land held Grant 174750, Lot 70066, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b) sold pursuant to a SPA dated 28 April 2015 [SPA (Suit No 49)].
[4] With regard to SPA (Suit No 43), SPA (Suit No 44), SPA (Suit No 45) and SPA (Suit No 47) [collectively referred to in this judgment as "4 SPAs (Suits No 43 to 45 and 47)"]:
(1) at the time of the execution of 4 SPAs (Suits No 43 to 45 and 47), Bungalow (Suit No 43), Bungalow (Suit No 44), Bungalow (Suit No. 45) and Bungalow (Suit No 47) [collectively referred to in this judgment as "4 Bungalows (Suits No 43 to 45 and 47)"] were still under construction by the Defendant; and
(2) the 4 SPAs (Suits No 43 to 45 and 47) were based on the "statutory' SPA (Statutory SPA) prescribed in Schedule G (Schedule G) to Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (HDR).
[5] At the time of the execution of SPA (Suit No 46) and SPA (Suit No 49) [collectively referred to in this judgment as "2 SPAs (Suits No 46 and 49)"], the construction of Bungalow (Suit No 46) and Bungalow (Suit No 49) [collectively referred to in this judgment as "2 Bungalows (Suits No 46 and 49)"] had already been completed.
[6] Section 6.01 in the 2 SPAs (Suits No 46 and 49) [Section 6.01 (Sui
