Who is responsible for the Highlands Tower disaster?

I read with concern the February 18, 2006, STAR online report on a ruling given by the Federal Court judge on the Highland Towers disaster. The whole article could be read from this link: Federal Court: MPAJ has full immunity from claims

The article by Raphael Wong had highlighted the fact that local councils "cannot be held liable for losses suffered by anyone should a building collapse," and it further stated that,"the court said that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was not liable for losses suffered by 73 residents of two blocks of the Highland Towers condominium who had to evacuate after the collapse of Block One 13 years ago, killing 48 people."

And the reason given by Justice Abdul Hamid (with a three-member panel of judges), was quoted that, "Projects will stall. The local council may go bust"... This is something really serious. Something is not right.

And then the most interesting fact of all is that, "they (the judges) said local authorities such as the MPAJ were given full immunity under Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) from claims for the pre-collapse period". Apparently MPAJ had appealed against the decision, "holding the MPAJ 15% responsible for the pre-collapse period". And the court unanimously allowed to MPAJ's appeal to set aside the Court of Appeal's decision .

On reflection, in 2000, "High Court Judge James Foong ruled for the 73, and apportioned liability as follows: Arab-Malaysian 30%, Metrolux and MBf Property Services together 20%, Highland Properties 15%, MPAJ 15%, draughtsman Wong Ting San 10% and engineer Wong Yuen Kean 10%."

My concern is among the lot, who is responsible for the disaster which was clearly a result from not providing enough drainage infrastructure to prevent the building from collapse?

Is it the local authority (MPAJ) who accepted the plans from the applicant (developer) , approved the plans, monitored the building and approved the certificate of fitness? The local authority's duty among others is to make sure of the health and safety of the citizens in it's authority, by using the statutory power that was bestowed upon it.

What is further interesting is based on a 2-1 majority with Justice Shim (one of the three judges) gave a dissenting judgment, "it dismissed the cross-appeal by the 73 residents of Block Two and Three against the Court of Appeal's ruling that the MPAJ was not liable for losses suffered during the post-collapse period."

And finally, "Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council's resources meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure."

Justice Abdul Hamid said further that, "In my view, the provision of basic necessities for the general public has priority over compensation for pure economic loss of some individuals, who are clearly better off than the majority of the residents in the local council area." The other judge, Judge Ariffin, agreed with him.

The only judge to dissent on the post-collapse liability, Justice Shim said, "MPAJ could not seek shelter in Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act because this was a case of negligence in failing to formulate and implement the master drainage plan so as to ensure the stability and safety of the adjacent Blocks Two and Three."

Let us be clear on this. The developer submitted the plans. The drainage plans (civil engineers plan) may have been included in geting approved but certainly were not followed through and built in the end. Didn't the local authority need to check and monitor the building undergoing construction, and the local authority officers be satisfied with the work and then finally give the approval needed for occupancy?

I cannot see any more reasons other than the local authority being at fault, or at least share the blame with the developers.

This is not a good court ruling and it should be contested further, or be appealed further and more effort should go into finding a satisfactory verdict in the end.