Sime Darby Property Berhad & Anor v Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat & Ors

Appellant(s): Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Nitt Sdn Bhd
• Susilawati Binti Ahmad

• YAA Datuk Seri Utama Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh
• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar

• The appeals originated from six separate civil suits filed by purchasers of luxury bungalows against the developer, alleging contractual breach of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) due to various patent and latent defects.
• The developer's defenses included reliance on signed Defect Rectification Forms (DRFs) and Feedback Forms (FFs) and an "as is where is" basis of sale for Build-then-Sell (BTS) units, while the purchasers alleged forgery of some forms and the existence of latent defects.
• The High Court found the developer liable for the alleged defects, awarding damages to the purchasers, but dismissed their claims for additional damages for loss of use and pre-judgment interest.

• Whether the High Court correctly found the developer liable for defects (including air-conditioning and other alleged defects) due to breach of its good workmanship and materials obligations under the statutory SPAs, applying "business common sense" in contract interpretation.
• Whether the High Court erred in finding that signatures on certain defect rectification forms were forged without expert handwriting evidence, and whether the developer could contract out of statutory Schedule I terms for Build-then-Sell units.
• Whether the statutory Defect Liability Period (DLP) terms apply only to patent defects discoverable during the DLP, and not to latent defects discoverable thereafter, and if the High Court correctly assessed the quantum of rectification costs.

• The Court allowed the developer's applications to strike out the purchasers' cross-appeals, holding that a cross-appeal is intended to "vary" a decision related to the main appeal, not to substantially alter a separate portion of the judgment.
• The Court dismissed the purchasers' applications to adduce new evidence, finding inordinate delay in filing and that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the expert witness's impartiality or the substantive issues of the appeal.
• The Court dismissed all six substantive appeals by the developer, affirming the High Court's decision on liability for defects, the validity of forgery claims, the inapplicability of "as is where is" clauses for BTS units, the distinction between patent and latent defects, and the quantum of damages, finding no manifest error in the High Court's findings.