JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA:

[1] The 13 pages Statement of Claim, reduced to the following, had stated inter alia, that in or around early March 1997 the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), its staff and or agent had commenced construction works extensively on a project site. Amongst the construction works carried out on the said site were piling works. Next door was the plaintiffs' (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) house. Due to that negligent construction work, the respondents' house suffered structural damage, resulting in cracks appearing on the floor, walls, columns and beams of the property. All these damages had threatened the respondents' safety and the occupants of the said house (hereinafter referred to as the property).

[2] The particulars of negligence were, amongst others, failure to make any or any sufficient inspection of the land before commencing the construction work including the piling works, failure to take any sufficient steps to ensure the safety of the occupants or property bordering the construction area, failure to stop and or postpone the piling works or construction even though they had knowledge regarding the damage inflicted upon the said property, and the danger to life and safety of the respondents and occupants of the said property, failure to apply good engineering standards properly in the said construction project, failure to give any attention or sufficient attention to the warnings given by the respondents, failure to give importance to the condition of the said property and occupants residing in houses bordering the said project site, carrying out the piling works or construction works in an unprofessional manner, unreasonably without care, attention and skill and without considering at all the interest of other people, especially the respondents.

[3] The respondents alleged that the cracks had widened in the course of time due to the continuous piling works carried out by the appellant and or its agent on the said property. This had also caused the property to subside, sink or move.

[4] The agreed facts are as follows: The first respondent is the registered owner of the property which is a piece of land held under H.S. (M) 03600, H.S. (M) 03602, Geran Mukim, Lot No. 54, Seksyen 88, Geran Mukim Lot No. 47, Seksyen 88 together with a double-storey bungalow house built thereon known as No. 290A Lorong Palas, Off Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur. At the relevant time the property was about 30 years old, with the first respondent and her family residing in it. She is the wife of the second respondent.

[5] The appellant is the owner of Lots 45, 46, 50,51, 52, 53, 57 and 58 seksyen 88, Lorong Palas, off Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur. These Lots are adjacent to the property belonging to the respondent. The appellant is developing the said Lots into a project known as "Cadangan Membina 2 Blok 20 Tingkat Bangunan dengan Tingkat Basement Untuk Tempat Letak Kereta" (the project). After obtaining on or about March 1997 the requisite government approvals, and after having carried out a soil test investigation, the appellant commenced construction works at the project site. After the appellant had commenced sheet piling works cracks began to appear on the property. The respondents thereafter informed the appellant of the cracks and they thereafter carried out a joint inspection of the property. Pursuant to the inspection, the appellant vide letter dated 24 June 1997, had agreed to affix glass plates on the cracked areas and to monitor the movements of the glass-plates. The appellant also agreed to provide props for the beam at the front portion of the main garage. By a letter dated 10 September 1997, the appellant's former solicitors had informed the respondents' solicitors that it had referred the matter to its insurers and would revert to the respondents' solicitors accordingly.

[6] The following facts have not been agreed upon by the contending parties. According to the appe