Property Malaysia

In today’s Star, the front page carried the news of the judgement of the Federal Court that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people.

The three-member panel consists of Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Steve Shim Lip Kiong and Federal Court judges Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamed and Datuk Arifin Zakaria.

According to the report:

They said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period. The court was unanimous in allowing the MPAJ’s appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period.

As for the post-collapse liability, it dismissed with a 2-1 majority the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period. Justice Shim gave a dissenting judgment.

Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council’s resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure.

But what really interested me was the views of the dissenting judge, Justice Shim. He said the MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three.

He said there was an assumption of responsibility by the MPAJ to do what it had promised.

“I do not think it would be in the public interest that a local authority such as the MPAJ should be allowed to disclaim liability for negligence committed beyond the expansive shelter of Section 95(2) or other relevant provisions of the Act nor would it be fair, just and reasonable to deprive the respondents of their rightful claims under the law”

There was also a side bar on reaction by the ex-residents of the Highland Towers. I won’t go into the article, but we suggest you read it here. We it, we could not help feeling the sense of defeat and helplessness the residents felt after 12 long years of struggle and setbacks to achieve some sort of closure for the great loss they had gone through.

It’s been 12 years since it happened, my friends. When it it the news, some of us were still in university. But it still remains of the the biggest tragedy in Malaysian social history, and the longer the members of Property Malaysia work immerse ourselves in this industry, the more feel the impact of this tragedy.

But hopefully, this will finally close the book on the case, and hopefully again, Malaysians will learn from our past mistakes.

Further reading:

This morning, we came across this excellent write up, with some legal case studies on the issue:

Highland Tower Collapse

You can also check out the articles of interest:
Implications of the Highland Towers Judgment in Relation to the Duties of Building Professionals in Malaysia
The Highland Towers Judgment - Civil Suit No. S5-21-174-1996
Highland Tower Episode Closed