GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Brief background

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife couple, had on 29.7.2000 jointly purchased a double storey link house at No. 27, Jalan 32/55D, Bukit Rimau, Section 32, Shah Alam from the 2^nd defendant the developer of the mixed development scheme known as Bukit Rimau, Shah Alam (the plaintiffs house). The 1^st and 4^th defendants, another husband and wife couple, had also jointly purchased from the 2^nd defendant a double storey corner house at No. 29, Jalan 32/55D, Bukit Rimau Section 32, Shah Alam (the defendant's house) which is a corner lot and adjoins the plaintiff's house. The plaintiffs and the defendants obtained vacant possession of their respective houses and the certificate of fitness from the 2^nd defendant in 2002.

2. The 1^st and 4^th defendants had obtained permission from the 3^rd defendant to renovate their house, in April 2003. The defendants also sought the consent of the plaintiffs to renovate their house which the plaintiffs in the spirit of good neighbourliness and in the belief that the renovations would be minor acceded. However at the time or before or after the permission was given the 1^st and 4^th defendants did not show the renovation plans to the plaintiffs despite several requests for the same. The purported renovation of the defendant's house actually represented a reconstruction of the house which involved the demolition of substantial portions of the defendant's house that affected several common structures linking the two properties.

3. The severity of the construction on the defendant's house directly caused the 2^nd defendant's consultant Refunding Hashim & NEH Sdn Bhd to issue the letter dated 6.6.2003 absolving all liability for the structural integrity of the plaintiffs house. This was subsequently endorsed by the 2^nd defendant vide their letter dated 12.6.2003.

4. The plaintiffs had repeatedly complained to the defendants that the construction of the defendant's house caused injury to the plaintiff's house but to no avail.

5. The construction on the defendant's house occurred during the 18 months defect liability period of the 2^nd defendant for both properties which incidentally ended on 18.1.2004 and after vacant possession and the certificate of fitness were given to the plaintiffs and the defendants by the 2^nd defendant. At the material time of the said construction on the defendant's house the 2^nd defendant had yet to issue the individual titles to the plaintiffs and defendants respective properties.

6. As against the 1^st and 4^th defendants, the plaintiffs have alleged that the purported renovation of their house had caused damage and injury to the plaintiff's house. The plaintiffs also claim that they have suffered loss including the loss of value of their house and damage, as a result of the nuisance perpetrated by the 1^st and 4^th defendants.

7. As against the 2^nd defendant, the plaintiffs allege that the 2^nd defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs premised more particularly on the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Mutual Covenants executed with the defendants and the plaintiffs and also the renovation work guidelines issued by the 2^nd defendant. The plaintiffs also allege that the 2^nd defendant at all material times owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to ensure that the structural integrity of the plaintiff's house was safeguarded and that the style, shape and structure of the plaintiff's house viewed as a whole would be as represented in its marketing literature. The plaintiffs claim that the 2^nd defendant breached its duty of care by absolving all responsibility for the safety and structural integrity of the plaintiff's house pursuant to the letters dated 6.6.2003 and 12.6.2003 thereby causing loss to the plaintiff.

8. As against the 3^rd defendant, the plaintiffs allege that the 3^rd defendant breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to ensure that the construction in the defendant's house pursuant to the 3^rd defendant's approval of the 1^s