1. ) THONG YUET SHENG 2. ) CHOOI TSUI YOKE 3. ) PARAMJIT SINGH A/L PERTAP SINGH 4. ) PALVINDERJIT SINGH A/L PARAMJIT SINGH 5. ) WONG WENG YEW 6. ) CHEONG CHEI YEAN 7. ) JAUHARIS BIN ABU @ MUSA 8. ) RIDZA BINTI AHMAD 9. ) LO MUI NGO @ LOW MUI NGO 10. ) KUMARAN A/L ELLAPPAN 11. ) LML Synergy Sdn Bhd v MYVILLA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that a housing developer may owe purchasers a tortious duty of care to build parcels that are safe and fit for purpose, breach of which founds liability determined ahead of a separate assessment of damages.

This High Court decision concerns a claim by purchasers of units in a high-end housing development against the developer for numerous defects, and in particular whether the developer owed and breached a tortious duty of care in constructing the housing parcels. The plaintiffs, purchasers of units in a project in Cyberjaya, sued the developer, Myvilla Development Sdn Bhd, alleging defective construction, including negligently installed electrical cables and wiring said to violate the Electricity Regulations 1994 and the Electricity Supply Act 1990 — with complaints of wrong incoming supply cable, weak earthing, non-compliant wiring sizes, departures from the electrical single-line drawing and damaged armoured cable — creating danger and damage to the purchasers and their property. Before trial, three plaintiffs withdrew their claims, which were struck out with nominal costs and without liberty to refile. The central questions were whether the developer owed the purchasers a tortious duty of care to ensure the parcels were safe for habitation and fit for purpose, and, if so, whether it had breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in construction. Having considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence and extensive submissions, the court found that the developer did owe such a duty of care and had breached it, establishing liability on a balance of probabilities for some of the claims. The court left the assessment of general and special damages, interest and costs to a second tranche of the trial on assessment, directing the plaintiffs to file the notice of assessment within one week. The judgment illustrates that a developer may owe purchasers a tortious duty of care over the safety and quality of construction independent of the contractual sale terms, with liability determined before damages are assessed separately. The court's finding of liability rested on the developer's failure to meet the standard of care, skill and diligence expected of a competent builder, leaving the quantification of the purchasers' loss to be determined at the assessment stage.