The court established that adjacent property owners owe a duty of care to avoid causing water seepages and related damages, reinforcing principles of negligence and nuisance.

Wong Kian Kheong J:

A. Background

[1] In this judgment, I will refer to parties as they were in the Sessions Court (SC).

[2] The fourth defendant company (4th defendant) is a developer of "Tropicana Golf and Country Resort" (Gated Community), a mixed development project which provides for residence, golf facilities and recreation.

[3] By way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 23 May 2007, the first and second plaintiffs ("1st plaintiff" and "2nd plaintiff") had jointly purchased from the 4th defendant a double-storey terrace house in the Gated Community with the postal address of no 15, Jalan TR 2/4, Tropicana Golf and Country Resort, 47410 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan (Plaintiffs' Property).

[4] The 4th defendant had sent a letter dated 12 October 2007 to the plaintiffs [4th defendant's Letter (12 October 2007)] which requested the plaintiffs to enter into a Deed of Mutual Covenants (DMC) with the 4th defendant in respect of the plaintiffs' Property and Gated Community. Consequently, the plaintiffs and 4th defendant executed a DMC on 26 May 2008.

[5] The plaintiffs' Property share a common party wall (Common Party Wall) with a double-storey terrace house in the Gated Community with the postal address of no 17, Jalan TR 2/4, Tropicana Golf and Country Resort, 47410 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan (Adjoining Property).

[6] The Adjoining Property was jointly purchased from the 4th defendant by Mr Lee Cheng Chuan and Ms Ng Wee Kean [1st Co-Owners (Adjoining Property)]. The 1st Co-Owners (Adjoining Property) sold the Adjoining Property to the first to third defendants ("1st defendant", "2nd defendant" and "3rd defendant") by way of an SPA dated 15 June 2009.

[7] The 1st to 3rd defendants did not sign the DMC with the 4th defendant regarding the Adjoining Property and Gated Community.

B. Proceedings In SC

[8] The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs (referred collectively in this judgment as the "Plaintiffs") have filed this suit against the 1st to 4th defendants (referred collectively as the "defendants") in SC (This Suit). According to the Re- Reamended Statement of Claim in This Suit (RRSOC), among others:

(1) as against the 1st to 3rd defendants:

(a) around 2011, the 1st to 3rd defendants had conducted massive renovations of the Adjoining Property [Renovation Works (1st to 3rd defendants)];

(b) the Renovation Works (1st to 3rd defendants) had caused water to seep through the Common Party Wall into the ground floor and first floor of the plaintiffs' Property (Water Seepages);

(c) the Water Seepages usually occurred when there was rain and had caused the following damage:

(i) there would be puddles of water on the floors of the ground floor and first floor of the plaintiffs' Property, especially on parts of the floors near the Common Party Wall;

(ii) the plaintiffs' furniture, built-in cabinets and parquet floors were damaged; and

(iii) the interior walls of the plaintiffs' Property "bubbled", became mouldy and malodorous;

(d) the plaintiffs had suffered emotional distress and health problems due to the Water Seepages (Plaintiffs' Emotional Distress/Adverse Health Consequences);

(e) the plaintiffs' children would frequently fall sick due to the damp environment in the plaintiffs' Property;

(f) the plaintiffs could not carry out ordinary daily family activities in the plaintiffs' Property, especially during rainy days when there would be puddles of water in the plaintiffs' Property; and

(g) the 1st to 3rd defendants had committed the following two torts against the plaintiffs:

(i) the 1st to 3rd defendants were negligent in carrying out the Renovation Works (1st to 3rd defendants); and

(ii) by way of the Renovation Works (1st to 3rd defendants), the 1st to 3rd defendants had committed a nuisance which interfered with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the plaintiffs' Property;

(2) as against the 4th defendant:

(a) the 4th defendant had breached the DMC as follows:

(i) the 4th defendant had breached representations made by the 4th defendant to the