Federal Court ends claims hope of
Highland Towers folks
19/04/2006 The Malay Mail
PUTRAJAYA, April 18 (Bernama) - It is the end of the road for the 73
residents of Blocks Two and Three of the Highland Towers condominium seeking
damages from the Ampang Municipal Council (MPAJ) for losses they suffered
after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people.
The Federal Court Tuesday denied them leave for a review of its ruling last
Feb 17 that the MPAJ is immunised under the Street, Drainage & Building Act
1974 from claims for pre-collapse.
The court also ruled that the MPAJ was also not responsible for
post-collapse liability.
Justices Datuk Alauddin Sheriff, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab.Rahman and Datuk
S.Augustine Paul said the issue of the finding of facts by the Federal Court
and lower court relied upon by the residents was not a ground to review the
Federal Court's decision.
The MPAJ was apportioned liability of 15 per cent for post-collapse by the
High Court but was indemnified from pre-collapse liability.
The Court of Appeal, however, held that it was responsible for pre-collapse
liability but not post-collapse.
The residents of blocks 2 and 3 had sued 10 parties for between RM31 million
and RM35 million to repair the two blocks which had to be evacuated after
the collapse of block 1 on Dec 11 1993, which rocked the nation and the
world.
The High Court had also held Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd (AMFB) 30 per cent
liable, engineer Wong Yuen Kean (10 per cent), Metrolux Sdn Bhd and MBf
Property Services Sdn Bhd (20 per cent), developer Highland Properties Sdn
Bhd (15 per cent) and draughtsman Wong Ting Sang (10 per cent).
Counsel N.Rajendran argued that the Federal Court should review its decision
to correct the order as there were crucial findings of facts which it
misunderstood.
He said the Federal Court's ruling that the MPAJ was immunised under the
Street, Drainage & Building Act was based on an error of fact.
"The Federal Court assumed that the trial judge held MPAJ liable for not
implementing the works in the master drainage plan, whereas in fact the
trial judge held MPAJ liable for not ensuring that the consultants it
engaged actually prepared the master drainage plan," he said.
|