Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd v Ooi Cheng Huat & Ors

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

Respondent(s): Spiral Pristine Sdn Bhd

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

• The purchasers of six luxury bungalows sued the developer for breach of contract and statutory duties under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 due to various latent and patent defects.
• The bungalows were sold under two different regimes: "Sell-then-Build" (STB) using statutory Schedule G, and "Build-then-Sell" (BTS) where the developer sought to sell on an "as is where is" basis to exclude statutory warranties.
• The developer resisted the claims by arguing that the defects were either rectified (relying on signed forms which the purchasers alleged were forged), caused by the purchasers' own renovations, or were excluded by the "as is where is" terms of the BTS contracts.

• Whether a developer can legally "contract out" of statutory Schedule I protections in BTS contracts by substituting them with "as is where is" terms that exclude the fundamental duty of good workmanship and materials.
• Whether the 24-month Defect Liability Period (DLP) prescribed in statutory Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) operates as a bar to claims for latent defects discovered after the expiration of the period.
• Whether the Court can apply the "business common sense" rule of contractual interpretation to impose obligations on a developer regarding the capacity and quality of installations (such as air-conditioning) not specifically detailed in the SPA schedules.

• The Court held that the Housing Development Act is social legislation and developers cannot contract out of statutory protections unless the substituted terms are more favorable to the purchaser; "as is where is" clauses cannot override the statutory duty of good workmanship.
• The Court ruled that the statutory DLP applies only to patent defects discoverable upon reasonable inspection; it does not extinguish the right to claim for latent defects arising from poor workmanship or materials discovered after the DLP.
• The Court affirmed that the "business common sense" rule requires developers of luxury properties to provide equipment and materials suitable for the scale and premium nature of the development, even if the SPA schedules are drafted broadly or vaguely.