Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd v Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat & 2 Ors

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

Respondent(s):

• Ooi Cheng Huat @ Ooi Peng Huat (Menyaman Atas Namanya Sendiri Dan Sebagai Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Linda Patricia Lim Sooi Hong, Si Mati)
• Bryan Patrick Ooi Sze-yuen
• Shawn Philip Ooi Sze- Yew

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

• Six related appeals arose from purchasers of luxury bungalows suing the developer for contractual breach due to various patent and latent defects in their properties.
• The bungalows were sold under both Sell-Then-Build (STB) and Build-Then-Sell (BTS) Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs), with the developer denying liability based on signed defect rectification forms (DRFs/FFs) or "as is where is" clauses for BTS units.
• The High Court found the developer liable for defects, including issues with under-capacity air-conditioners and other structural/quality problems, awarding substantial damages, but dismissed the purchasers' claims for loss of use and pre-judgment interest.

• Whether the High Court erred in finding the developer liable for defects and in accepting the purchasers' assertion that DRFs/FFs were forged without requiring specific pleading of "forgery" or a handwriting expert.
• Whether the developer could contract out of the statutory Schedule I for BTS agreements via an "as is where is" clause, and if the Defect Liability Period (DLP) applied only to patent defects, allowing claims for latent defects discovered post-DLP.
• Whether the High Court correctly assessed the rectification costs based on the purchasers' expert witnesses and appropriately applied the "but for" test for causation.

• The Court dismissed the developer's applications to strike out the purchasers' cross-appeals for loss of use and pre-judgment interest, holding that such claims required separate notices of appeal, not cross-appeals.
• The Court also dismissed the purchasers' applications to adduce new evidence regarding an expert witness's prior employment, citing inordinate delay and irrelevance to the core issues.
• The Court dismissed the developer's substantive appeals, affirming the High Court's findings on liability for defects, the forgery of rectification forms, the developer's inability to contract out of statutory protections with less favourable terms, and the correct assessment of rectification costs.