Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1840
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
ASTINO AGRO HOUSE MULTI SYSTEM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TEH JUN REN & ANOR; CHUAH CHIN SUN & ANOR (THIRD PARTY) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-83-05/2022]
The court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to prove negligence by the Defendants, attributing the issues to systemic management failures rather than individual actions.
Headnote:(A) Negligence - Duty of care - Construction contract - The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants for negligence in failing to inform the Engineering Department of solar panel load requirements leading to structural issues was dismissed as the root cause was a defective design, not negligence by the Defendants. (Paras 23-26)
(B) Internal Investigation - Findings - The internal investigation report indicated systemic failures within the Plaintiff's organization rather than individual negligence by the Defendants. (Paras 51-58)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff undertook a project to construct broiler houses but alleged negligence by the Defendants, leading to structural failures and subsequent reconstruction. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the Defendants, attributing the issues to defective design and management failures. (Paras 23-26)
Issues: The main issue was whether the Defendants were negligent in their duties related to the construction. (Paras 20-21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the structural failures were due to defective design and management failures, not negligence by the Defendants. (Paras 23-26)
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed, with costs awarded to the Defendants. (Paras 89-90)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff's ("P") action against the Defendants is for negligence in carrying out their duties as employees of P. The 1st Defendant ("D1") was formerly the Sales Manager of P. The 2nd Defendant ("D2") was previously the Chief Operating Officer of P.
[2] The purported negligence is said to have occurred in connection with the construction of two broiler houses ("broiler houses") for a customer of P, one Dinding Poultry Development Centre Sdn Bhd ("DPDC"). it is alleged that the Defendants neglected to inform P's Engineering Department of DPDC's solar panel load requirement. As such, the construction of the broiler houses did not take into account the solar panel load requirement of DPDC. This purportedly caused the roof of one of the broiler houses to sag. The broiler houses were dismantled and reconstructed, causing P to suffer loss. P claims for a sum of RM1,383,111.28 as damages.
[3] D1 brought third party proceedings against the First Third Party ("TP1") ypi js an executive director of P, ie the Director of Sales. He is the Head of the Sales and Marketing Department of P. D1 is the subordinate of TP1. Similarly, D2 brought third party proceedings against the Second Third Party ("TP2"). TP2 is the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of P,
[4] After a full trial, I dismissed P's claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.
Background Facts
The DPDC Project
[5] P had undertaken a turnkey design and build project with its customer DPDC, for the construction of two broiler houses at Lumut, Perak ("DPDC project"). The broiler houses are known as 'A5H3' (ie Farm A5 House 3) and 'B3H1T' (ie Farm B3 House 11) respectively. The roof of one of the broiler houses ie A5H3 sagged. There was no roof sagging on the other broiler house ie B3H11. Nevertheless, both broiler houses were dismantled and reconstructed.
[6] According to P, both broiler houses were unable to support the solar panel load on the top of the broiler roof. P alleges that the Defendants had neglected to inform P's Engineering Department of DPDC's solar panel load requirement. Consequently, P's Engineering Department did not provide the exact quotation for the fabrication works for solar panel system on the roof of the broiler houses. As a result, the design of the broiler houses did not take into account DPDC's solar panel load requirement, and had to be dismantled and reconstructed.
The Construction Contract
[7] The contract dated 6 June 2021 for the construction of the broiler houses ("contract") was signed by TP1, and witnessed by D1. At that time, D1 was a Sales Executive in P. Clause 5.3 of the contract stipulates that "the Contractor [ie P] undertakes that the design, the Contractor's Documents, the execution and the completed Works will be in accordance with: (a) the Laws in the Country".
[8] In the contract, the building specification for the broiler houses specified solar panel load of 0.22 kN/m². The quotations and design drawings in the contract did not take into account the solar panel load requirement of DPDC, which is said to be 0.25 kN/m². The building designs and specification for both broiler houses are similar, except that one is slightly longer.
The Evaluation List
[9] For the purpose of tendering for the DPDC project, PW-1 (Structure Designer in P's Engineering Department) sent a blank 'Design Input Building Specification Sheet' for D1 to fill in the relevant details. The Design Input Building Specification Sheet does not contain any item for solar panel loading. At the time of filling up the Design Input Building Specification Sheet, D1 was not aware of any requirement by DPDC in respect of solar panel loading in the roof of the broiler houses for future use.
[10] P's Engineering Department came up with the design drawing for the broiler houses. And sent it to D1 to be forwarded to DPDC, for the purpose of tendering for the DPDC project. Thereafter, DPDC sent an Evaluation List for P to fill in the particulars. The Evalu
