Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2446
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 affirmed that housing developers are liable for defects in construction under statutory obligations, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory SPAs and the burden of proof in establishing claims for damages.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) - Plaintiffs alleged defects in six bungalows, claiming damages for breach of statutory obligations by the defendant developer. Court found that defects existed and were due to defective workmanship and materials, awarding damages accordingly. (Paras 1-125)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Plaintiffs successfully proved their claims regarding alleged defects and the defendant's liability. The court ruled that the defendant's reliance on various defenses, including the expiration of the defect liability period and the Home Owners Manual, was misplaced. (Paras 1-125)
(C) Expert testimony - The court emphasized the importance of expert opinions in establishing the existence of defects and the costs of rectification, ultimately favoring the plaintiffs' expert assessments. (Paras 1-125)
(D) Costs - The court ordered the defendant to pay costs to the plaintiffs, determined on a standard basis, and awarded interest on the damages and costs. (Paras 1-125)
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
