Justice Azimah Omar, delivering the court’s unanimous decision, said the appeal had no merit and did not warrant appellate intervention.
The bench also ordered Sime Darby Property to pay the owners RM180,000 in costs.
Also on the bench were Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Azizah Nawawi, both appeals court judges when the case was heard in October 2024.
They assumed their current posts on July 28 last year, with Azimah joining them on the Federal Court bench on Dec 3.
Sime Darby Property Bhd took over from Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd as the appellant in the course of the appeal.
Lawyers Nitin Nadkarni, Amy Hiew, Pan Yan Teng and Stephanie Lim represented Sime Darby Property while Colin Andrew Pereira and Edwina Ti appeared for the owner.
On April 19, 2024, the High Court in Shah Alam ruled that the owners had proven their case against the developer on a balance of probabilities.
Justice Wong Kian Kheong, now a Court of Appeal judge, also awarded interest on the judgment sum at a rate of 5% per annum calculated until full payment, and costs totalling RM560,000.
Wong said the suits involved the owners’ right to claim damages for breaches by the developer of its obligations as regards good workmanship and materials under sale and purchase agreements for properties in Primo Bukit Jelutong priced at between RM4.7 million and RM5.5 million each.
The judge also noted that the developer had failed to bring third-party proceedings against the main contractor to claim a contribution and indemnity towards its liability.
The owners sued the developer in 2017 for the cost of rectifying their units.
In its defence, the developer denied there were defects and claimed that any shortcomings had been rectified. However, Wong found that the signatures on some of the defect rectification forms purportedly submitted by the owners had been forged.
He also dismissed the developer’s contention that the defects were caused by renovations carried out by the owners and the result of wear and tear.
The judge also dismissed the developer’s defence that two of the six owners who only bought their homes after the project was completed did so on an “as-is, where-is” basis.