THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

We now give the grounds of our decision. The facts of the case The appellants are architects by profession, and are partners in an architectural firm called ‘Loh & Loh Architects’. They are sued by the respondents for professional negligence in the carrying out of their duties as the architects of a project known as ‘Projek Skim Bangunan Industri Ringan Bersepadu Pencemaran Bebas’ at Taman Perindustrian Machang Indah (‘the project’) – a development project undertaken by a company called Merger Acceptance Sdn. Bhd (‘the developer’). The respondents are purchasers of industrial buildings or units constructed by the developer in the project. The respondents, as purchasers, each, individually, had entered into a sale and purchase agreement (‘the SPA’) with the developer. The developer, Merger Acceptance, had, by an agreement called ‘Project Management Agreement’, appointed the first defendant 4
(Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd) to be the project manager of the project. Merger Acceptance, the developer, is not a party in the action. Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd, whilst a party to the action before the High Court, being cited as the first defendant, however, is not a party to this appeal. In the present case, the original layout plan for the project was submitted by the appellants, as the architects of the project, to the local authority, Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai (‘MPSP’). It was prepared on the instruction of the developer and the project manager (the first defendant). It was subsequently submitted to MPSP on the instruction of the developer. MPSP approved the original layout plan on 20 December 1994. However, in reality, the road and drainage works were carried out not in accordance with the approved original layout plan. Instead, they were carried out in accordance with the Project Engineer’s Plan (Exh. D2A) prepared by the project engineer and approved by MPSP. But this was done not due to any oversight 5
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
Page 3: Introduction Defendants (1) Rakyat
Page 7 and 8: The Vendor shall do all acts and th
Page 9 and 10: y the vendor failing which the vend
Page 11 and 12: developer proceeded to construct th
Page 13 and 14: (b) the refusal on the part of the
Page 15 and 16: architects for the project, resulti
Page 17 and 18: CFOs under the SPA. As the learned
Page 19 and 20: … speak, short circuiting the con
Page 21 and 22: 4 CLJ 508 (but see now the Federal
Page 23 and 24: The above proposition was cited wit
Page 25 and 26: From the evidence in this case, I f
Page 27 and 28: consequences. The case law authorit
Page 29 and 30: First one has to ask whether, as be
Page 31 and 32: which ought to negative, or to redu
Page 33 and 34: contemplate would be affected by hi
Page 35 and 36: ‘neighbourhood’ and that the si
Page 37 and 38: certainly owe a duty of care to the
Page 39 and 40: 128 ALR 163), New Zealand (for exam
Page 41 and 42: that the layout plan necessitated e
Page 43 and 44: Peculiarity of High Court’s Order
Page 45: Date of decision: 5 January 2012 Da

THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?