Back
2025 MarsdenLR 127
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BAYU MELATI SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DR JOSHUA EMMANUEL & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BC-7-07/2024]
Under the Sale & Purchase Agreement, claims for defects must be within the defect liability period; claims outside this period are not recoverable.
Headnote:(A) Sale & Purchase Agreement - Clause 25 - Defect Liability Period - Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages due to defects in bungalow purchased, within liability period - The court noted that subsequent claims were made after expiry of defect liability period - Established that claims must relate to defects listed within the stipulated period - The Sessions Court was found to have erred in awarding damages based on claims not encompassed by the Defects List or falling outside the liability period. (Paras 21, 22, 29, 43)
(B) Appeal - Principle of Appellate Review - High Court will not disturb findings made by trial judge unless it is satisfied that lower court was plainly wrong - Emphasized the established principle that appellate courts respect factual findings of trial courts unless extraordinary circumstances exist. (Paras 11, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs purchased a bungalow under a Sale & Purchase Agreement, and after identifying defects within the Defect Liability Period, sought damages for repairs but included claims beyond the stipulated period and defective criteria. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The High Court overturned the lower court’s judgment, stating that claims made by the plaintiffs were either out of time or outside the agreed terms regarding defects due to the timeframe of the claims, which were largely supported by evidence submitted beyond the defect liability period. (Paras 21, 22, 29)
Issues: The Court considered whether claims were valid under the Defect Liability Period as per the Sale & Purchase Agreement, and whether the Sessions Court erred in its judgment. (Paras 21, 43)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that only claims relating to defects properly notified within the defect liability period were valid, and any claims made after such period were not the responsibility of the vendor, thereby overturning the lower court’s awards. (Paras 21, 29)
Result: Appeal allowed, prior judgment set aside, and costs awarded to the defendant.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The case involves an appeal concerning a claim for damages related to a bungalow purchased under a Sale & Purchase Agreement (SPA) with a defect liability period of 24 months (!) .
-
The plaintiffs initially filed a claim for damages within the defect liability period, supported by a Defects List submitted during that time (!) (!) .
-
The Sessions Court awarded damages based on multiple claims, including costs for repairs, topography, and other damages, as well as exemplary damages and interest (!) - (!) .
-
The defendant appealed, asserting that claims made after the expiry of the defect liability period were not valid, and that the damages awarded were unsupported by the pleadings and evidence (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court emphasized that under the SPA, only defects notified within the defect liability period are actionable, and claims based on reports or evidence obtained after this period are not recoverable (!) (!) .
-
The court found that certain claims for damages, including those for costs of rectification, flooding, and related expenses, were based on reports and evidence obtained well after the expiry of the defect liability period (!) (!) (!) - (!) .
-
The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims for damages related to defects outside the scope of the Defects List and beyond the defect liability period were improperly allowed, and thus, the appeals against these claims were successful (!) - (!) .
-
The court also scrutinized the claim for exemplary damages and found no sufficient reasons or legal basis for awarding such damages, leading to its dismissal (!) - (!) .
-
The court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim due to the absence of relevant pleadings and evidence in the record (!) .
-
Overall, the appellate court set aside the lower court’s awards for damages and ordered that the plaintiff’s claims be dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant (!) - (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts should only interfere with factual findings if they are plainly wrong, and emphasized the importance of parties adhering strictly to their pleadings and the scope of their claims (!) - (!) .
-
The decision underscores that claims for damages must be supported by timely and relevant evidence, specifically within the period stipulated in the contractual agreement, and that evidence obtained outside this period cannot be used to substantiate claims for defects or damages (!) (!) .
These points collectively summarize the court’s reasoning, findings, and final decision in this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case and key facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of the judgment in favor of plaintiffs. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's jurisdiction and appeal principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. defendant's liability based on defect liability period. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. examination of rm377,045 claim and findings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. consideration of rm435,000 claim and ruling. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. evaluation of special damages of rm27,171. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. assessment of restoration costs claim. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. exemplary damages claim ruling. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. discussion on the dismissal of counterclaims. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 11. final ruling and order by the court. (Para 43) |
Introduction
[1] The parties shall be referred to as they stood in the Sessions Court.
[2] This Judgment is on the appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court allowing the claim by the plaintiffs against the defendant for damages for unrectified defects of a bungalow house in Shah Alam Selangor that they had purchased from the defendant.
Salient Facts
[3] By a Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 25 July 2013 ("SPA"), the plaintiffs bought from the defendant a double-storey bungalow house that was to be constructed.
[4] Clause 25 of the SPA provided for a defect liability period of 24 months ("DLP"):
"25. Defect Liability Period
(1) Any defects, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building which shall become apparent within a period of twenty-four (24) calendar months after the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Building and which are due to defective workmanship or materials or; the said Building not having been construed in accordance with the plans and descriptions as specified in the Second and Fourth Schedules as approved or amended by the Appropriate Authority, shall be repaired and made good by the Vendor at its own cost and expense within thirty (30) days of the Vendor having received written notice thereof from the Purchaser.
(2) If the said defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building have not been made good by the Vendor within thirty (30) days under subclause (1), the Purchaser shall be entitled to carry out the works to repair and make good the said defect, shrinkage or other faults himself and to recover from the Vendor the costs of repairing and making good the same and the Purchaser may deduct such costs from any sum which has been held by the Vendor's solicitors as stakeholders under item 5 of the Third Schedule provided that the Purchaser shall, at any time after the expiry of the said period of thirty (30) days, notify the Vendor of the costs of repairing and making good such defect, shrinkage or other faults before the commencement of the works and shall give the Vendor an opportunity to carry out the works himself within fourteen (14) days from the date the Purchaser has notified the Vendor of his intention to carry out the works and provided further that the Purchaser shall carry out and commence the works as soon as practicable after the Vendor's failure to carry out the said works within the said period of fourteen (14) days. In such an event, the Vendor's solicitor shall release such costs to the Purchaser from the stakeholder sum held by the Vendor's solicitors under item 5 of the Third Schedule within fourteen (14) days after the receipt by the Vendor's solicitors of the Purchaser's written demand specifying the amount of such costs."
[5] The plaintiffs received vacant possession of the bungalow on 28 September 2015, which meant that the DLP under cl 25 of the Agreement would be from 29 September 2015 to 28 September 2017.
[6] In para 6 of their Pernyataan Tuntutan dated 21 May 2021 (amended on 4 July 2022) ("SOC"), the plaintiffs had pleaded that, on or around 22 October 2015, ie within the DLP, they had issued to the defendant in the form provided by the defendant a list of defects of their bun
