Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2731
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
WONG KIAN KHEONG, J
Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (suing in his own name and as the executor and trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors – Plaintiff
Versus
trustee of the estate of Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong deceased) & Ors v Sime Darby Property Bhd and other cases – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NOS BA-22C-43-10 OF 2017, BA-22C-44-10 OF 2017, BA-22C-45-10 OF 2017, BA-22C-46-10 OF 2017, BA-22C-47-10 OF 2017 AND BA-22C-49-11 OF 2018
Colin Andrew Pereira (with Gary Wong Kin Wai) (Goh Wong Pereira) for the plaintiffs.
Rohan Arasoo a/l Jeyabalah (with Amy Hiew Kar Yi and Pan Yan Teng) (Harold & Lam Partnership) for the defendant.
The housing developer breached statutory obligations under housing laws regarding materials and workmanship in sale agreements, rendering them liable for construction defects. Expert testimony sufficed to identify defects and establish causation, while plaintiffs’ claims for loss of use were denied.
Headnote:(A) Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreements - The plaintiffs alleged multiple defects and claimed damages due to defects in bungalows sold under non-compliant SPAs - The defendant, a housing developer, was found liable due to breaches of statutory obligations regarding materials and workmanship. (Paras 21-44, 59-64)
(B) Signature Validity - The court addressed the issue of forged signatures on defect rectification forms, ruling that plaintiffs could challenge those documents - Evidence established that the signatures were indeed forged, thereby invalidating the documents. (Paras 16-34)
(C) Causation in Defects - The plaintiffs successfully proved that the construction defects stemmed from the defendant’s failure to comply with statutory obligations regarding construction standards and quality - Expert testimonies confirmed the existence and cause of defects. (Paras 65-82)
(D) Costs and Damages - The court awarded damages for rectification costs and found that the plaintiffs could not claim for loss of use - Pre-judgment interest on awarded damages was granted. (Paras 110-111, 123-124) (E) For the case at hand, the issues included the validity of documents, the timeliness of complaints about defects, and the defendants’ failure to comply with established legal frameworks. (Paras 19-22, 85-90) (F) The decision clarifies that statutory protections in housing development legislation cannot be waived or circumvented by contractual clauses or non-disclosure of defects. (Paras 13-17, 92-97)
Wong Kian Kheong J:
JUDGMENT
(after trial)
A. Introduction
[1]This judgment arises from a joint trial (Trial) of the above six suits (6 Suits) filed by purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows built and sold (6 Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant), a housing developer.
[2]In these 6 Suits, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had breached various provisions of six Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows (6 SPAs) entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant [Alleged Defendant’s Breaches (6 SPAs)]. The Alleged Defendant’s Breaches (6 SPAs) concern novel legal issues regarding certain clauses in the 6 SPAs.
B. Background
[3]The 6 Suits are as follows:
(1)suit no. BA-22C-43-10/2017 (Suit No. 43) had been filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 43)] against the Defendant with regard to a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 43)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174772, Lot 70087, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1.12.2010 [SPA (Suit No. 43)];
(2)suit no. BA-22C-44-10/2017 (Suit No. 44) was filed by the plaintiff company [Plaintiff (Suit No. 44)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 44)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174763, Lot 70078, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 18.4.2012 [SPA (Suit No. 44)];
(3)suit no. BA-22C-45-10/2017 (Suit No. 45) had been filed by the plaintiff [Plaintiff (Suit No. 45)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 45)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174760, Lot 70075, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 1.12.2010 [SPA (Suit No. 45)];
(4)suit no. BA-22C-46-10/2017 (Suit No. 46) was filed by the plaintiff [Plaintiff (Suit No. 46)] against the Defendant in respect of a two- storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 46)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174770, Lot 70085, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 22.4.2013 [SPA (Suit No. 46)];
(5)suit no. BA-22C-47-10/2017 (Suit No. 47) had been filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 47)] against the Defendant in respect of a two-storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 47)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174771, Lot 70086, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 16.4.2012 [SPA (Suit No. 47)]; and
(6)suit no. BA-22C-49-11/2018 (Suit No. 49) was filed by the plaintiffs [Plaintiffs (Suit No. 49)] against the Defendant in respect of a two- storey bungalow with a basement [Bungalow (Suit No. 49)] which was -
(a)built on land held Grant 174750, Lot 70066, Mukim Damansara, Petaling District, Selangor; and
(b)sold pursuant to a SPA dated 28.4.2015 [SPA (Suit No. 49)].
[4]With regard to SPA (Suit No. 43), SPA (Suit No. 44), SPA (Suit No. 45) and SPA (Suit No. 47) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)”] -
(1)at the time of the execution of 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47), Bungalow (Suit No. 43), Bungalow (Suit No. 44), Bungalow (Suit No. 45) and Bungalow (Suit No. 47) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “4 Bungalows (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47)”] were still under construction by the Defendant; and
(2)the 4 SPAs (Suits No. 43 to 45 and 47) were based on the “statutory” SPA (Statutory SPA) prescribed in Schedule G (Schedule G) to Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (HDR).
[5]At the time of the execution of SPA (Suit No. 46) and SPA (Suit No. 49) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49)”], the construction of Bungalow (Suit No. 46) and Bungalow (Suit No. 49) [collectively referred to in this judgment as “2 Bungalows (Suits No. 46 and 49)”] had already been completed.
[6] Section 6 .01 in the 2 SPAs (Suits No. 46 and 49) [ Section 6 .01 (S
