Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA 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.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY