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
Catchwords
Whether the Defendant, as the developer, owes a tortious duty of care to the Plaintiffs to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property If it is established that a tortious duty of care is owed, whether the Defendant has breached the same by failing to exercise all reasonable care, skill and diligence in constructing the Plaintiffs’ Housing Parcels, as follows: (a) The Defendant as developer negligently installed the electrical cables and/ or wires and/ or violated the standards set under the ER 1994 and/ or ES Act 1990, which may cause and/ or have caused danger and severe damage to the Plaintiffs and/ or their family and their Housing Parcels and belongings (b) The Defendant failed to install safe electrical cables and/ or wiring caused by (amongst others) wrong incoming supply cable, weak earthing cable, non-compliant wiring size, noncompliance with the electrical single line drawing, damaged armoured cable, joint wiring, sub-standard cable connection and interfloor leakage affecting the power cables (c) The Defendant failed to construct the Project professionally and in a workmanlike manner thereby causing fire and short circuits (d) The Defendant failed to comply with the ER 1994 by installing electrical wirings that are sub-standard (e) The Defendant failed to comply with the earthing conditions prescribed under the ES Act 1990 (f) The Defendant failed to comply with the directions from the EC to rectify all units and submit a Completion Report (Form G) and Test Report (Form H) (g) The Defendant failed to construct the Housing Parcels using materials of a suitable nature and/ or quality (h) The Defendant failed to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property Whether upon delivery of vacant possession – (a) the materials, equipment and workmanship employed by the Defendant in the construction of the Housing Parcels were in accordance with the SPA and compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements (b) the electrical design, wiring systems and installation works at the Housing Parcels were compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements Whether the CCC issued by the Architect is defective Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from ventilating complaints of alleged defects in the Housing Parcels after – (a) accepting vacant possession of the Housing Parcels without complaint or protest; and/ or (b) approving and/ or acknowledging the rectification works performed by the Defendant in response to the said alleged defects Whether the Plaintiffs’ complaints of alleged defects were caused and/ or contributed solely and/ or substantially by the negligence of the Plaintiffs, the contractors and/ or the agents appointed by them If negligence is established, whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the following claims: (a) special damages as set out in Annexure A of the SoC; (b) damages as a result of defective CCC at the rate of 10% per annum calculated on a daily basis from the date of delivery of vacant possession to the date of the issuance of a complete and valid CCC; (c) loss of use of the parcels fully or at all due to the threat of electrocution and leakages; (d) loss of investment and/ or rental at the rate of RM10,000.00 per month from 2016 to date and continuing; (e) diminution in value of the parcels; (f) continuous losses as a result of leakages at the bathroom and other defects; (g) continuous losses as a result of leakages at other places for all the Plaintiffs except P1 - P3; (h) continuous losses as a result of defective installation of electrical wiring;
Practice Areas
Whether the Defendant, as the developer, owes a tortious duty of care to the Plaintiffs to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property If it is established that a tortious duty of care is owed, whether the Defendant has breached the same by failing to exercise all reasonable care, skill and diligence in constructing the Plaintiffs’ Housing Parcels, as follows: (a) The Defendant as developer negligently installed the electrical cables and/ or wires and/ or violated the standards set under the ER 1994 and/ or ES Act 1990, which may cause and/ or have caused danger and severe damage to the Plaintiffs and/ or their family and their Housing Parcels and belongings (b) The Defendant failed to install safe electrical cables and/ or wiring caused by (amongst others) wrong incoming supply cable, weak earthing cable, non-compliant wiring size, noncompliance with the electrical single line drawing, damaged armoured cable, joint wiring, sub-standard cable connection and interfloor leakage affecting the power cables (c) The Defendant failed to construct the Project professionally and in a workmanlike manner thereby causing fire and short circuits (d) The Defendant failed to comply with the ER 1994 by installing electrical wirings that are sub-standard (e) The Defendant failed to comply with the earthing conditions prescribed under the ES Act 1990 (f) The Defendant failed to comply with the directions from the EC to rectify all units and submit a Completion Report (Form G) and Test Report (Form H) (g) The Defendant failed to construct the Housing Parcels using materials of a suitable nature and/ or quality (h) The Defendant failed to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property Whether upon delivery of vacant possession – (a) the materials, equipment and workmanship employed by the Defendant in the construction of the Housing Parcels were in accordance with the SPA and compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements (b) the electrical design, wiring systems and installation works at the Housing Parcels were compliant with the applicable regulations and requirements Whether the CCC issued by the Architect is defective Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from ventilating complaints of alleged defects in the Housing Parcels after – (a) accepting vacant possession of the Housing Parcels without complaint or protest; and/ or (b) approving and/ or acknowledging the rectification works performed by the Defendant in response to the said alleged defects Whether the Plaintiffs’ complaints of alleged defects were caused and/ or contributed solely and/ or substantially by the negligence of the Plaintiffs, the contractors and/ or the agents appointed by them If negligence is established, whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the following claims: (a) special damages as set out in Annexure A of the SoC; (b) damages as a result of defective CCC at the rate of 10% per annum calculated on a daily basis from the date of delivery of vacant possession to the date of the issuance of a complete and valid CCC; (c) loss of use of the parcels fully or at all due to the threat of electrocution and leakages; (d) loss of investment and/ or rental at the rate of RM10,000.00 per month from 2016 to date and continuing; (e) diminution in value of the parcels; (f) continuous losses as a result of leakages at the bathroom and other defects; (g) continuous losses as a result of leakages at other places for all the Plaintiffs except P1 (h) continuous losses as a result of defective installation of electrical wiring;
Judges (1)
Parties (12)
LML Synergy Sdn Bhd Plaintiff MYVILLA DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Defendant Cheong Chei Yean Plaintiff Chooi Tsui Yoke Plaintiff Jauharis bin Abu @ Musa Plaintiff Kumaran a/l Ellappan Plaintiff Lo Mui Ngo @ Low Mui Ngo Plaintiff Palvinderjit Singh a/l Paramjit Singh Plaintiff Paramjit Singh a/l Pertap Singh Plaintiff Ridza binti Ahmad Plaintiff Thong Yuet Sheng Plaintiff Wong Weng Yew Plaintiff
Case Significance
1. ) THONG YUET SHENG 2. ) CHOOI TSUI YOKE 3. ) PARAMJIT SINGH A/L PERTAP SIN... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated June 25, 2025 (citation: wa-22c-94-12-2021). The case was decided by Aliza binti Sulaiman.
Key issues: Whether the Defendant, as the developer, owes a tortious duty of care to the Plaintiffs to ensure that the Housing Parcels are safe for human habitation and/ or fit for purpose as exclusive property.
What was the outcome of 1. ) THONG YUET SHENG 2. ) CHOOI TSUI YOKE 3. ) PARAMJIT SINGH A/L PERTAP SIN...?
1. ) THONG YUET SHENG 2. ) CHOOI TSUI YOKE 3. ) PARAMJIT SINGH A/L PERTAP SIN... is a High Court decision dated June 25, 2025. The case was heard by Aliza binti Sulaiman. See the full judgment for details.