Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

LATENT DEFECT – DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD

In brief 

Do you own a home or a business? If you answered yes, do you understand your rights as a property owner? Do you know what to do if you discover cracks in your property’s walls, ceilings, and so on one fine day, but the defect liability period stipulated in the statutory sale and purchase agreement has expired? You’re probably wondering if you’re still inside the time limit for filing a claim for your damaged property. 

  1. Now, for the good news! The Limitation (Amendment) Act 2018 (“Amendment Act”), which just entered into force on September 1, 2019, has redefined the legislation on latent damages. This new law was established by Parliament to help many property buyers who may not identify flaws in their house until after many years have gone (up to a certain limit of course).

What is a latent defect?

In home complexes, this is a regular problem. The majority of property owners are lay people with limited technical knowledge and insufficient equipment to uncover or identify building defects. The majority of the time, they are only aware of the flaws after they are discovered during a routine examination. These flaws are referred to as latent (or concealed) flaws. They are the polar opposites of patent flaws, which are readily apparent.  By the way, the DLP does not cover all new dwelling complexes. This warranty, according to the HDA, only applies to homes with residential titles. As a result, the DLP does not cover SoFo and SoVo devices with commercial titles.

The examples of typical latent defects are: 

  1. Improper design problems – During the building design stage, inappropriate construction materials were specified. For example, where the space is directly exposed to adverse weather conditions, a cementitious waterproofing system was provided. 
  2. Poor workmanship problems – Poor foundation bearing strength, which might lead to building settlement and, as a result, building cracks, owing to poor craftsmanship. During the piling operation, the contractor must assure correct craftsmanship.
  3. Construction material problems – Improper contractors’ “cost-cutting” activities or wrong manufacturers’ declarations might create construction material difficulties. To meet their responsibility at the lowest feasible cost, substandard supplies were provided. Tiles, for example, have been discovered fractured over time after being placed.

How long is the latent defect period? 

The Amendment Act included a new Section 6A, which states that an action for negligence damages (not including personal injuries) must be filed within three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff first possessed the information and right to initiate the case. This implies that a property owner can sue a developer for a flaw detected in his or her home within three years of the date the issue was first identified, even if the defect happened six years ago.

There is, however, a catch. No legal action can be initiated 15 years after the fault develops, according to Section 6A (3). This was to safeguard engineers and architects, according to Datuk Seri Razali Ibrahim, then-Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, during the introduction of the amendment Bill in Parliament. 

The newly included provision was also accompanied by examples that explained how it works to the general public. Two of the examples are very appropriate:

Section 6A illustration (2)

‘In the year 2000, C purchased a home from D. C noticed a crack in the walls in 2005, which severely harmed them. The cracks were discovered in 2002, two years after C moved into the property, according to a building study prepared by a consultant. From 2005, C has three years to launch a lawsuit in court against D for damages.’

Section 6A illustration (3)

‘In the year 2000, C purchased a home from D.C noticed a break in the walls in 2017, which caused significant damage. The cracks were discovered in 2001, one year after C moved into the property, according to a building report prepared by a consultant. C cannot file a lawsuit since the fifteen-year limitation period has passed him by.’

It is likely that the primary issue concerning the applicability of section 6A(2) will be when the plaintiff first possessed the knowledge necessary to initiate an action. To be clear, Section 6A(4)(b) requires a plaintiff to be reasonably alert in identifying a fault, whether by self-observation or with the assistance of an expert. As a result, this newly enacted law does not provide any protection to unaware property owners.

Conclusion

The Amendment Act is unquestionably a positive step forward. It resolves property owners’ complaints and sets a 15-year time limit for filing claims. It also compels property owners to take reasonable steps to detect hidden defects before the time limit for filing a lawsuit expires. Regardless of the DLP indicated in Sales and Purchase Agreements, this new clause applies.

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us