Residents Of Highland Towers Cannot Seek Damages From MPAJ
18/04/2006 Bernama

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.

Rajendran said Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act (granting immunity to local authorities from claims) could only apply to the inspection and approval of building works and could not apply to give local authorities immunity from negligence that continues or arises after the completion of building projects.

He said the Federal Court's decision to give immunity to MPAJ had by judicial decision extended the limited immunity conferred on local authorities by Parliament for construction and inspection.

The MPAJ's counsel, V.S. Viswanathan, objected to the application, contending that the immunity issue was carefully considered by the Federal Court.

He said it was important for the Federal Court to preserve the doctrine of finality in litigation, otherwise there would be chaos in the administration of justice.

He said the Federal Court was correct in its decision and even if there were some errors, which in this case there was none, it could not be a ground to review the decision.

He said the residents were given a fair hearing and must accept the majority decision of the Federal Court and this application must be dismissed with costs.

-- BERNAMA