In a recent legal battle over land development gone wrong, the appellate court ruled against the defendants, highlighting negligence and environmental damage caused by their actions.
Tan Kai Haur @ Edward Tan, trading under Edwood Real Estate Developer and Pengiran Haji Zainal Ariffin bin Pengiran Seri Wijaya Pengiran Haji Ahmad were defendants in the case.
Respondents in the appeal and plaintiffs in the case were Zama’iah binti Haji Nayan and Haji Kamsani bin Haji Ahmad.
Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, sitting with Justices Michael Lunn and Sir Peter Gross, examined the case which centred on a development project initiated in April or May 2016 by the defendants, involving extensive earthworks on their property, which included draining and filling a pond.
The plaintiffs, neighbouring landowners, argued that the development works disrupted existing water drainage systems, leading to severe flooding on their properties.
They presented evidence showing a direct correlation between the commencement of the defendants’ project and the onset of flooding incidents, which they claimed were previously non-existent.
Key to the plaintiffs’ case was the construction of a concrete drain on the site of a previous earth drain, a measure taken by the plaintiffs after months of enduring flooding.
They asserted that the defendants’ activities, particularly filling the pond and depositing soil to raise land levels, caused the blockage of existing earth drains, exacerbating the flooding issue.
During the trial, the defendants countered that their earthworks were conducted according to approved plans and denied the existence of crucial pre-existing drainage structures. However, the trial judge found compelling evidence, including photographic proof and expert testimony, supporting the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence.
The appellate court concluded that the defendants were fully aware of the risks posed by their actions and failed to mitigate these risks adequately.
Despite claims that a retaining wall and neighbouring activities contributed to flooding, the trial judge emphasised that the defendants’ actions were the primary cause, as evidenced by the effectiveness of the plaintiffs’ remedial measures once the concrete drain was installed.
In its June 25 decision, the Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiffs BND6,400 in general damages for the distress and inconvenience caused by eight months of repeated flooding. Special damages, which were claimed but unsupported by sufficient evidence, were deferred for assessment by a Registrar as per the judge’s discretion.
Ultimately, the defendants’ appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s decision and ordering them to bear the costs of both the appeal and the initial trial. – Fadley Faisal
