Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) ALBERT CHAI MIN CHUNG 2. ) ADELE LEONG BOON YIEN

b-02cw-596-04-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 29 January 2026 • B-02(C)(W)-596-04/2023 • 79 min read

27 cases cited (0 SG, 27 foreign)

Outcome

Thus, we HEREBY DISMISS the Appellant’s six Appeals and accordingly AFFIRM and MAINTAIN the Learned Judge’s decision dated 30.3.2023 [128] We also accordingly order costs of RM30,000.00 to be paid by Sime Darby – Appellant to the Respondents in each appeal, subject to allocatur.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (b-02cw-596-04-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

HDA 1976 – developer obligations, good workmanship, quality materials, luxury housing standards; HDLR 1989 Reg 11(1B) – SPA, DLP, contracting out limits; SPA – breach, workmanship, materials, implied terms; Latent vs Patent Defects – DLP scope, recoverability; DRFs & FFs – evidentiary weight, forgery, burden of proof; Contractual Interpretation – business common sense, implied terms; Causation – ‘but for’ test, multiple causes, apportionment; Expert Evidence – architects, quantity surveyors, construction defects; Quantum of Damages – rectification costs, s.74 Contracts Act; Cross-Appeals – Rule 8(1) RCA, procedural propriety; Fresh Evidence – s.69 CJA, Rule 7(3A) RCA, Ladd v Marshall; Consumer Protection – statutory safeguards, HDA social legislation; Housing Disputes – remedies, limits on developer defences; Forgery & Evidence – civil proof, oral vs expert; Statutory Protection – contracting out limits, homebuyer protection.

Practice Areas

Housing Development Damages

Judges (4)

Azimah binti Omar Delivered Azizah binti Haji Nawawi Coram Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Coram Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Coram

Counsel (8)

Goh Wong Pereira Firm Harold & Lam Partnership Firm Colin Andrew Pereira Counsel Respondent Dato' Nitin Nadkarni Counsel Appellant Jeslyn Ling Li Gin Counsel Respondent Pan Yan Teng Counsel Appellant Rohan Arasoo Yeyabalah Counsel Appellant Stephanie Lim Shu Jun Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd Appellant Adele Leong Boon Yien Respondent Albert Chai Min Chung Respondent

Case Significance

Reaffirms the consumer-protection character of the Housing Development Act 1976: its safeguards for homebuyers cannot be contracted out of under Regulation 11(1B), and a developer's defences cannot defeat the statutory remedies for defective homes; the developer's appeal against individual purchasers was dismissed with costs.

This Court of Appeal decision completes a set of six housing-defect appeals heard together, in which the developer Sime Darby Property Berhad (with Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd substituted as appellant) challenged High Court decisions allowing purchasers' claims for defective luxury homes. In this appeal the respondents are individual purchasers, natural persons referred to here by their roles. The most instructive theme for this appeal is the limit on a developer's ability to contract out of its statutory obligations and the consumer-protection purpose of the housing legislation.

The appeals turned on the developer's obligations of good workmanship, quality materials and luxury housing standards under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1976, and, critically, on the limits on contracting out imposed by Regulation 11(1B) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989. The court treated the Act as social legislation enacted for the protection of homebuyers, with statutory safeguards that a developer cannot displace through the terms of the sale and purchase agreement or through defences that would erode those safeguards. It also considered the scope of the defect-liability period, the recoverability of rectification costs under section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950, and procedural questions of cross-appeals and fresh evidence under the Ladd v Marshall test.

On the merits the court found no reason to disturb the trial judge's conclusions. It held there was "no manifest error in the High Court's appreciation of evidence", that the preference for the purchasers' expert witnesses was sound, and that the purchasers had "successfully discharged their legal and evidential burden to prove the Rectification Costs incurred". Finding "no merits whatsoever" in the developer's appeals, it dismissed all six, affirmed the High Court, and ordered costs of RM30,000 to the respondents in each appeal.

The judgment is significant for reaffirming the consumer-protection character of the Housing Development Act: the statutory safeguards for homebuyers are not to be contracted out of, and a developer's defences cannot be allowed to defeat the remedies the legislation secures for purchasers of defective homes.

Summary

This case is part of six consolidated appeals by Sime Darby Property against homebuyers claiming rectification costs for construction defects in luxury homes at Bukit Jelutong. The Court of Appeal found no appealable errors in the High Court's findings on developer obligations under the Housing Development Act 1976, including liability for latent defects and the quantum of rectification costs. All six appeals were dismissed with costs of RM30,000 per appeal.

What limit did the court place on contracting out?

Applying Regulation 11(1B) of the 1989 Regulations and treating the Housing Development Act 1976 as protective social legislation, the court held that a developer cannot contract out of its statutory obligations or rely on defences that would erode the safeguards the legislation secures for homebuyers.

What was the result of the appeals?

The court found no merit in any of the developer's six appeals, held there was no manifest error in the High Court's appreciation of the evidence and that the purchasers had proved their rectification costs, dismissed all six, affirmed the High Court and ordered costs of RM30,000 to the respondents in each.

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950

s 74

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

s 69(2)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Indian Contract Act

s 73

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (27)

UK (3)

[1971] 3 All ER 237 [1978] 3 All ER 37 [1994] 1 WLR 1360

MY (24)

[1961] 1 MLJ 17 [1982] 2 MLJ 31 [1989] 3 MLJ 360 [1993] 3 MLJ 360 [1999] 1 MLJ 65 [2007] 2 MLJ 229 [2008] 2 CLJ 232 [2008] 2 CLJ 284 [2009] 7 MLJ 681 [2014] 3 MLJ 672 [2016] 1 MLJ 464 [2016] 10 MLJ 635 [2016] 8 CLJ 149 [2017] 4 MLJ 697 [2019] 5 CLJ 139 [2020] 12 MLJ 6 [2020] 6 MLJ 133 [2020] 6 MLJ 191 [2021] MLJU 140 [2022] MLJU 1969 [2023] 5 MLJ 644 [2023] MLJU 1159 [2024] 5 MLJ 460 [2024] MLJU 1280

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (b-02cw-596-04-2023)