|
A shock for plaintiffs
28/02/2006 New Straits Times
THE Federal Court’s decision that local authorities can fall back on their
legal immunity has shocked not only the Highland Towers plaintiffs but also
ratepayers.
For the affected parties, the 12-year saga looks like a case of justice not
only delayed but also denied.
Many had expected that the court would rule in favour of the Highland Towers
representatives, especially after all the other defendants had agreed to
compensate.
If local authorities are granted immunity in important aspects, it would be
bestowing them with rights and privileges without the corresponding balance
of duties, liabilities and responsibilities.
Judicial activism in the West and the Commonwealth countries is rife in
cases involving local government between ratepayers and municipal
authorities.
The courts usually take a more proactive stance favouring ratepayers against
the local authorities who are more prone to a host of negative elements of
administration and inefficiency.
Unfortunately, the Federal Court’s verdict will only allow local authorities
to become more complacent, negligent and unmindful of ratepayers’ rights and
needs, more so when the country does not allow local council elections or
class action lawsuits.
Questions will be posed that if the local authorities cannot accept
liability, even a partial 15 per cent liability in this case, then what
right have the local authorities to issue the certificate of fitness (CF)?
Local authorities are the sole dispensers of CF and many duties are implied
in the CF, one of which is to ensure that houses/buildings given CF (and
also the lives of the residents) should not be endangered by subsequent
approvals and development, especially on hillslopes and unstable areas.
The issuing of CF has been cited as the main cause of delay in the housing
delivery system, adding costs to developers and burdening house buyers.
Recently, suggestions were made by the Government that local authorities be
relieved of the right to issue the CF and that private bodies of engineers
and architects be given this right.
Looking at the Highland Towers episode, one wonders why this should not be
immediately done.
The other defendants owned up to their responsibility and accepted liability
but not the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council.
The local authorities should not take cover under the immunity principle
which was accorded to them for a nobler and more paramount purpose.
V. THOMAS, Sungai Buloh |
