SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 MarsdenLR 963

JAMES FOONG
STEVEN PHOA CHENG LOON – Appellant
Versus
HIGHLAND PROPERTIES SDN BHD – Respondent



Advocates:
For the 1st defendant - AD Rajah (Mr. Khoo with him); M/s Khoo & CH Loo For the 2nd defendant - Melvin Selvam (Sharon Kaur with him); M/s Jagjit Singh & Co For the 4th defendant - VS Viswanathan (S Ravichandran with him); M/s VS Viswa&Co For the 5th defendant - Cecil Abraham (Dhinesh Bhaskaran with him); M/s ShearnDelamore & Co For the 6th defendant - not represented For the 7th & 8th defendant - RR Sethu (Kelvin Kong with him); M/s Heng & Morgan For the 9th & 10th defendant - Mohd Zawawi Salleh, State Legal Advisor of Selangor(Tuan Nik Suhaimi Nik Suleiman with him) For the plaintiff - Rajendra Navaratnam (Yatiswara Ramachandran with him); M/sAzman Davidson & Co

Negligence and nuisance arise from the failure to maintain safe drainage and structural integrity, leading to catastrophic collapse.

Headnote:The case centers on negligence and nuisance after the collapse of Block 1 of the Highland Towers, resulting in fatalities. The court discusses the construction, drainage management, and the responsibilities of the local authority; ultimately ruling on the liabilities of the involved parties. The plaintiffs' claims for damages are primarily based on the acts and omissions of the defendants in failing to ensure structural safety and adequate drainage systems. In conclusion, the court suitable apportions liability among the various defendants in relation to the events leading to the disaster.

Table of Content
1. collapse of block 1 led to legal actions regarding negligence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims arose from negligence related to construction and drainage. (Para 4 , 5)
3. duties of care established among various defendants. (Para 6 , 7)
James Foong J:

Introduction

Highland Towers, as is collectively known, consist of three blocks 12 storey high apartments named simply as block 1, 2, and 3 respectively. It was constructed sometime between 1975 and 1978 and the residents who dwelled therein were middle income earners. Directly behind the three blocks was a rather steep hill with a stream flowing west, if it was allowed to follow its natural course. The attraction of this place was the natural surroundings with an extensive view of the city of Kuala Lumpur.

On Saturday, 11 December 1993, at about 1.30pm, after ten days of continuous rainfall, block 1 collapsed. When rescue operation was called off after days of searching, 48 people were recorded dead. The nation declared this incident as a - national tragedy.

Immediately after the collapse of Block 1 the residents of Block 2 & 3 were prevented from entering their apartments by the local authority having jurisdiction of the area, the Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (MPAJ), for fear of the instability of these two buildings. A couple of days later, these occupants were allowed in, in restricted number, but only to collect their personal valuables. At that time, even with the presence of the security forces, the apartments were looted. With the eventual passing of time especially when security was reduced and subsequently withdrawn altogether vandalism became more intense. By 1998, when this court visited the site, every apartment in Block 2 & 3 was completely stripped of contents, including fittings leaving only the naked structure.

MPAJ had issued statutory notice to the purchasers/owners of the apartments of Block 2 & 3 to demolish these two buildings. This was refused leading to the affected purchasers/owners obtaining from the High Court at Shah Alam an order to set aside this notice. To date Block 2 & 3 remain standing but unoccupied for fear of instability.

Some three years after the Highland Towers tragedy the purchasers/owners of Block 2 & 3 issued a writ against ten defendants. This is the case against them.

The Defendants

The ten defendants are as follows:

The 1st defendant was the developer of the three apartment blocks in Highland Towers and is still the registered owner of the three pieces of land - Lot 494, 495, & 653 in the Mukim of Hulu Klang, District of Gombak, State of Selangor, on which the buildings stood. For purposes of demarcation, I shall refer to this entire land as the Highland Towers Site.

The 2nd defendant was the purported architect of Highland Towers.

The 3rd defendant, a brother of the 2nd defendant, was the engineer for Highland Towers.

The 4th defendant is and was the local authority at the material time who had jurisdiction over the Highland Towers Site, the Arab Malaysian Land and the surrounding areas.

The 5th defendant is and was, at the material time, the registered owner of 50 lots of bungalow land directly at the rear of Highland Towers. I shall collectively refer to these lots as the Arab Malaysian Land.

The 6th defendant (Tropic) is a company that carried out clearing works on the Arab Malaysian Land in late 1978 and early 1979.

The 7th defendant is the registered owner of a large piece of land (Metrolux Land) which is situated on top of a ridge, commonly known as Bukit Antarabangsa. This land is located just above the Arab Malaysian Land and at the material time was under development.

The 8th defendant is and, at all material times, the provider of management services to the 7th defendant to develop the Metrolux Land into a housing estate.

The 9th defendant is the State Government Selangor.

The 10th defendant is the Director of Lands & Mines of the Selangor State.

The Plaintiffs' Claim

The plaintiffs' claim is for da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top