YouTube Transcript:
The Highland Towers tragedy: Facts and Subsequent court case

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

View:

hi everyone so this lecture

is going to present to you uh the case

study of highland towers as a case study

um building failure in malaysia okay

the hainan towers is a is a very

interesting case study

okay because it shows the operation of

sdba together with other

related laws on how it was used in the

case of building failure in malaysia

the the things that we have studied

before

we are going to find again in this

particular case study

so beginning with the facts of the case

key effects of the case it stays there

highland towers comprise three tower

blocks of 12

stories high built from 1975 to 1978.

so if you can imagine okay uh highland

towers there is blocks one

two and three okay so um three blocks

clustered together

and at the back of uh block one there is

a hill slope

up here okay up slope up slope so at the

back

which is located at the back of block

one uh uh and up the slope there are two

parcels of land or two developments

ongoing

developments okay that uh occurred at

the time of

um building collapse so at the time of

the highland towers collapse

okay which are relevant to the to this

particular case

so bear that in mind i want you to

imagine

uh the the fact that highland towers

comprise three towers

and that's why there is instead tower

but the building that collapsed is only

one out of

the three hour blocks okay

now uh states there due to development

of that area okay

remember i said just now i mentioned

about the two

new developments up here or upslope

behind

highland towers in particular block one

okay

due to development of that area here up

here

up slope a stream a stream at the back

known here in the court case it has no

name but it was given the name

eastern east stream uh

at the back up up here across the hill

actually was diverted into a drain

so the drink goes down from the um up

from the slope it goes down okay or it

actually there's a terrorist terrorist

form but also but

drainage has been built okay due to the

fact that there was highland towers and

highlighted was um development required

drainage

uh as what we have learned before

drainage is important okay

and the stream the natural stream was

diverted

into a drain that ran across the slope

behind the highland towers okay there

was a natural stream

but the natural walls diverted uh the

the

flow of the stream was diverted so now

the natural stream becomes unnatural and

now the path

is now lit and the path now led to the

drain that ran across the slope behind

highland towers

the problem was the drainage system was

inadequately built

inadequate meaning that um

not all of the planned uh drains for

instance

was built okay um actually fact of the

case stated that only 10 percent

of the planned drainage system

was built for highland towers so that's

why it's stated there it states that the

drainage system

was inadequately built well not enough

now so this is a fact that we all know

a malicious monsoon season happens at

the end of the year so begin in november

december so though uh

those months we experience heavy

rainfall

in malaysia right so that is also

pertinent to this particular case patina

means important important details

to this case yeah so bear that in mind

yeah monster season at the end of the

year

uh drainage was inadequate and the

natural stream was diverted into the

inadequate drains

eventually the continuous rain

overwhelmed the poor drainage system now

what happened was okay uh prior to the

collapse of

um block one okay there has been a

continue continuous rain for about 10

days some

some of the literature said 14 days two

weeks so

ten to two weeks ten days to two weeks

but continuous

monsoon rain so you can imagine very

heavy rain

okay volume of rainfall very

very big um so if um

the stream couldn't that's the sorry the

stream

um the natural path of the stream was

diverted so instead of flowing

um uh flowing um on its natural path it

was

diverted that the flow of the rain the

flow of the

water or the rainfall was directed into

the

drains drainage was inadequate not

enough yeah not enough

so what happened was it overflowed over

overflowed in terms of

or can be said that overwhelmed

overwhelmed overflowed but also um

if you read some of the articles they

mentioned about how

the inadequate drains okay there were

cracks in the drains

so the there was seepage there was

seepage of rain water into the soil

under the rains okay so that was what

happened

heavy rainfall inadequate drainage

then the water overflowed or what we can

say they're overwhelmed

uh the drainage system then

this is what happened on december 11

1993 so that was about 15 years from the

um from the date of completion

of highland town was the three blocks

okay

approximately 15 years after the

completion december 11

1993 the poorly constructed retaining

walls so

not just the drain the drains

that the drainage system that was

problematic to highland towers but also

the retaining walls

had issues retaining warsaw issues in

terms of poor construction

it gave way to the force of some hundred

fifty thousand cubic meters a month so

meaning

that that um the if you get um

recall back what i said just now

drainage system couldn't handle the

volume of rain water the rain water

seeped to the ground

or overflowed from the drainage system

um water or rain rain water plus soil

becomes

mud okay

what is the uh characteristic of mind

or what are the characteristics of mind

mind is one

um liquid we can say that liquid

free flow right so soil is hard

soil is immobile but once soil is mixed

with water

it becomes mud mud is almost liquid mud

mobile we can say that it can easily

move again

move so gravity gravity pulled down the

mic from the

his slope downwards uh down downhill not

downwards downhill or down the slope

and it created a false force

of what they equate

with the weight of 200 boeing 747

airplanes so there is underground

underground movement of earth actually

of mud

from the soil mixed with the rainwater

earth which was equivalent to

200 boeing 747 airplanes coming down the

hill slope coming down means from the

higher grounds to the

lower grounds now

it knocked down the retaining walls and

at the same time

things happen underground you know what

happened to the

foundation of block um one of highland

towers it gave way

it collapsed or it was broken

by the force of the mud just now that

came down from the

uphill to downhill the structural

foundation failed

and what happened was no foundation

imagine a building with no foundation

the building finally collapsed at around

1 30 p.m that was large hour yeah at

that time

it collapsed building collapse so we see

how it collapsed it doesn't collapse

down like the

uh world trade center but rather it fall

it fell

on the side you i will show you some of

the photos later on a few slides down

now and the

building collapse caused 48 deaths

okay 48 deaths now again that in mind

only one

out of the three towers of highland

towers collapsed or failed

only one building a block collapse which

is block one

now uh this is a

picture showing you um

better that shows better what i just

described to you just now are the facts

of the

building collapse actually we are not

just talking about the

collapse the point of collapse we're not

talking about the cost

meaning the root of the cost because we

know now

i have told you the cost is the uh the

landslide or the mud slide that is the

cost that knocked down the

foundation the pi the piles from the uh

from underneath the

tower but okay now um

we haven't discussed about how that kind

of came about i'm gonna put

what what's the route uh root cause that

cause we know that

again that lumber what's the root cause

so that one is the second part

when we examine the court cases

related to the highland towers now but

for this slide

it shows you uh what triggered the

highland towers collapse

this infographic showed you five steps

or five things that occurred on that day

which correlate correlate correlates

with what i

just described in the previous slide now

number one

says that a small stream behind block

one

okay so these are the uh three blocks

there one two three

one two three is here is in a cluster in

a cluster

but only block one failed or block one

uh collapsed

okay but we can see that uh at the back

of the highland towers development

you have um ups uphill uh up sorry

upslope

uh absolutely this look at that scan so

it's a slope that

goes upwards so see it is um the

highland house is also located

um at the hill slope but the the

the hill has been leveled has been cut

has been leveled

there is still uh what there was still

uh high ground

at the back up hill uh up up slope now

way way way up there because i mentioned

just now there were two

um different developments that occurred

on the slope on the high slopes behind

the highland towers

okay the natural stream a small stream

behind block one diverted and

the diversion of the natural path uh

before that there was a path there was a

natural part of the stream but now the

stream has been diverted because they

wanted to

do or they wanted to develop that

particular muscle so they

somehow has to they somehow had to drain

or they somehow

have to have to ensure that there's no

stream running through the land

otherwise the land itself will be

uh will become vulnerable again will

will not

be um solid or will not be safe to be

developed so that's why they

they diverted the stream as but

they wanted to prevent uh water from

going to the ground so

they diverted the natural stream to

another

path which is which goes to the drains

that they built

um on that particular new development

uh site and also um muscle and also

uh the drain is connected to highland

towers of course you cannot have drains

without connection to other developments

below that so

there must be a system and that um

drains the water from uphill to down

here connecting

all the different uh developments on the

way so anyway we go back to number one

small stream behind block one diverted

through a drainage system

and uh combined with water runoff

from development project so again water

run after from the heavy rain that

occurred just now

and uh number two there are the second

reason two weeks of continuous rain

seeped through cracks in the soil

actually muscled

antenna because of the fact that the

drains overflowed

overflowed means

what happened again just now i said uh

water

glass soil becomes mud so now a pool of

water and soggy ground soggy ground

and swampy ground to the west of block

3. so now becomes

liquid the whole ground should have

become unstable they become liquid

and move or move down i can see that up

here moving down the arrow

okay and plus um uh underground stream

two years about candidates the sword

comes weak or becomes

muddy underground plus

you go there you see that number for

what happened then huh when

um there's underground movement of the

soil or the

of the matches now the files the churro

to the piles like filing the piles

holding up the

high-rise buildings only supported from

side from the bottom not the side so

you see there the two diagrams side by

side the left

diagram shows you what happens when

there is um support

from the side and also support from the

bottom

to the uh for the uh piles so stable the

building is stable the foundation is

strong stable piles uh strong foundation

stable building but when there is no

site support okay only bottom support

the

files or the foundation so the files and

the piles and then the foundation

became unstable see that there's no more

support there that's there's no support

there's no footing anymore right

there's no more footing now what happens

um then no foundation the foundation

failed

the foundation gave way so that

compromise the foundation has been

had been compromised number five okay

further making things uh worse further

making things worse

underground limestone cave nearby which

gave in

the soil in kl huh and there is a mix

between hard rock

glass limestone a significant portion

of klm comprises limestone

limestone soil

[Music]

soil condition to build high rise on

because it's weak

the the the soil couldn't sustain um

high loads

links which can be brought upon by

high-rise building so

it's not good for high-rise but there

are technologies that can overcome this

problem but in that particular case

okay okay um go back to the years 1975

1978 okay we didn't have new

technologies then

what was available at that time was only

fire filing

for the foundation so during the time of

the construction

of highland towers so we couldn't blame

um the usage of piles

for the foundation and i did uh some

blame that why did you use this method

when you know that it's not suitable for

uh this kind of soil but at that time

that was the best technology available

at that time that was the best knowledge

that they had

the help of computers for instance of

simulation for instance

so at that time they built the best as

their knowledge at the best of their

knowledge

pertaining to their knowledge pertaining

to their to the technologies available

okay now so all these factors

it combined together it caused block a

to finally collapse at 1 30 pm

11 december 1993

okay the tragedy killed 48

of occupants owners of the building uh

so some of the occupants may be renters

kind of so that's why we call them

occupants rather than

owners so we didn't say 48 owners

were killed no i could be renters as

well

so they said occupants um and owners

died yeah 48 people

now this is the simplest way that i can

show that i can think of

because we had these you know online

learning

without having the advantage of a

whiteboard normally i would draw this

to show people the the simplest

diagram simplest uh depiction

in in picture form what happened to

highland i was now if you can imagine

from the previous

slide so this is simpler so you can see

there this is

if you can imagine this block block one

of highland towers we have the file

uh foundation file foundation again

whoever who forgot what is file

foundation go back

google or go back to your lecture notes

from year one now anyway

uh pile foundation block one and there's

upslope at the back of the highland

tower so this is block one and then

block two for three so i didn't show you

block two and three

now the trigger the trigger was this

the continuous heavy rain for ten days

and some say

two weeks continuous every day you know

huh so every day it rained

rain rain once a season so the greenwich

system was overwhelmed

overwhelmed

the the brain the heavy sorry the high

volume of rain water

and then the there was seepage means the

from the brain drains were supposed to

dive

to um uh to to

move the water to another place to to

to prevent this kind of things from

happening from

um from compromising the land um

from yeah from compromising the land

integrity

from weakening the soil i told you

that's the purpose of drainage

good drainage and that that's the

objective of having

drains now anyway heavy rain okay

now plus soil becomes smart it travels

downhill

and then the force of the 200.747

not down or um uh uh destroyed

you can see that destroyed the uh pile

uh the foundation the fire foundation

fire foundation gave way and as a result

there

was no foundation foundation was

weakened

week and then the building simply

collapsed on its side

yeah now um

again it it it is worth it

to think about um

about highland towers more than just the

building collapsing but we think about

it in a realistic way you know

as a student of real estate okay because

some of you may

may think okay if you look at this

google earth

google earth short okay you can see

here highland towers right you can see

here booker and the bank sir right

bucket means hill right so this is hilly

area

slopes hill slopes

heels and we know now

that it is dangerous we take it for

granted now

it's dangerous to be or it carries a

great risk

when you build on heel slopes

okay we know that now okay but at that

time

can you do you don't you wonder why do

they

let um developments to occur at high

uh so on high grounds or on hill slopes

are hydrolyzed no no problem

if the higher ground is um level no

problem but this one he'll slow you know

he's slow why why do you um

why did authorities um uh

authorize this at that time now go here

and then let your eyes wonder to where

klcc

is klcc is just not 8.7 kilometers away

and not even 10 kilometers about 8.7

kilometers away

from highland towers very near you can

see highland um guess you see in fact

from the

highland table side okay about 20

minutes away

uh 20 minutes away so because it is

very near the cbd but just at the edge

of the cbd of kl city center

therefore we can say that there was

immense

or there was development pressure at

that time

as uh development and croatia and

croatia to the suburbs suburbs

it goes away from the city center go

back to your what you learn in one zero

zero six land economy

okay isn't it isn't that what's

happening here you have the city center

okay and then you have a congestion

problem here and then people moving

out to find better housing for instance

with housing or

um land uh prices become too expensive

here

to operate rent rents also um become too

expensive here so people

seek for other locations

away from the city center so there is

the worst development pressure

and if you can imagine this is the

center for commerce

center for commerce a center for

businesses so you need to have workers

isn't it

so the workers need housing so you can

see that the housing schemes housing

schemes all these are housing schemes to

serve

the commercial center so highland towers

actually

is an answer to the pressure in housing

demand

so we and also here are the advances so

this at that time were considered the

elite areas and because of the fact that

they were quite secluded from the

uh quite nala quite exclusively

away from the from the other schemes

so you have the exclusivity there also

considered elite

or exclusive at that time but anyway

you can see there so back in mind so uh

if you uh

if you were asking yourself later on why

why did we

um build on heal slopes or why did the

authority at that time allow

the developments to be first of all it

was private land so no problem no

private land you can develop then you

can ask for planning permission

and if granted you can uh proceed with

your planning permission but in this

case okay uh maybe you

were asking uh if the the

duty of the local authorities is to

is to scrutinize to examine the planning

permission to ensure that the buildings

are safe i mean

i'm very sure tamil will ask this

question why why

was it um uh why was highland towers

allowed but at the same time remember

what i said just now it was

built in 19 from 1975 to 1978.

three towers sorry at that time the

knowledge was limited okay technology

was limited

so it was correct it was the correct

decision

at that time but now also uh heel slope

developments okay

are enabled by

new technology new available

technologies and also we can do

simulation and things like that

so that's why um countries like hong

kong for instance they have

um they have limited land limited flat

land

huh so and um the the steep hill slopes

they couldn't

um develop but some but

uh the majority of the less

steep uh heel slopes have been developed

okay

again develop pressure okay now

the next few photos will show you the

chronology

the the exact um moment

when block one came down on that day

on that particular day on 11th december

1993 at 1 30

pm huh so you can see that it um falls

on its side or it fell

on its side so

block one dot two block three i'm not

really sure which one is two and three

but block one came down

okay that one came down so this you see

there this

is the evidence or this is the picture

of the

landslide or the mud slide mud slash

landslide that occurred due to the whole

drainage

that was actually they attributed to

uh the new developments occurring behind

the highland towers

and there were two separate developments

one arab nation the other one metrolux

anyway

i can see there um i think this is more

clear

and you can relate this to what i have

informed to you just now yeah

um tower one sorry block one at the back

you have the landslide

the retaining wall have come down okay

um less like um drain sorry the drainage

and also streams of course you cannot

see from here but um actually that's the

cause of this um

this um tragedy okay so again

you can see that it collapsed on this

side

again

i'm very sure some of you have seen this

before yeah

these pictures

okay very near to

other smaller developments isn't it

these are what they call it

standalone uh detached house in the area

okay so this now is what the

site looks like blocks two and three

still standing but nobody's living there

which becomes the

which became the the what they call the

uh subject matter of the highland towers

court case get this um standing these

two

still standing towers blocks two and

three huh

subject matter of the court case stephen

stephen poi

and others yeah and this is highland

towers block one collapsed side you can

see that tama here will be very near to

the i think it's duke isn't it

yeah view from the side anyway uh so we

come to the second part of the lecture

which is the high court case okay this

case went all the way

up to the federal court okay but

um on different i can't say different

methods the

the case that i'm going to sorry the

case that we are going to discuss today

that went all the way up to the

uh federal court uh regards the appeal

by mpaj regarding the

the liability that was

found in the court of appeal but at the

court at the high court

the sorry the court of first instance

high court case involves eight

defendants

but at the federal court uh we are just

focusing on

um the the results for uh mph

okay anyway i hope this is clear we go

to the basics first they've got the

first instance

okay uh the case was known as stephen

hua

and others uh la one we call this la one

versus highland properties number heart

and others

okay so on this side okay the plaintiff

side

we have 93 on this side

the defendant we have 10

10 so 93 versus 10.

now uh the year was 2000

and i got again the collapse happened in

1993

uh the high court case happened in 2000.

i said 93 sorry 73 73 owners

73 owners and occupiers not 93 73 sorry

my mistake

okay 73 owners and occupiers of blocks

two and three yeah not the block that

went down just now

but the still standing blocks aren't

that the abandoned blocks

blocks two and three now have been

abandoned nobody lives there anymore

so they are suing 10 defendants on this

matter

now the defendants okay you can see the

first defendant

is the developer of highland towers of

course

anything happens you go to the developer

first okay because that

um that is the direct contractual

relationship that you have you

plus the um seller so seller is

developer

so you have learned your contracts at

before okay

it is important to establish legal

relationship

if that cannot be established you there

is no case

learn this this is the rule of contract

you must establish legal relationship

first okay then only you can um

argue negligence or nuisance or whatever

okay anyway

first defender developer second defender

the trustman okay again the spelling the

correct spelling is actually drafts

d-r-a-u-g-h-t but it's okay

andras man also can this is american

code american

spelling jasmine who was appointed as

architect again

for those who are not clear jasmine

okay is for lucas plan draftsman

the training is almost like architect

meaning that they learn how to draw

building plans

but but they uh

they have they didn't do their part too

so means they

they have limited um what they call it

limited jurisdiction or limited

uh plans that they can draw or they can

and submit to the

uh to the local authority and not like

architects architects

they are limitless are they ars they can

design or they can draw up building

plans for

um for a mixed development complex for

instance can

but not drastic adjustment only simple

two-story building huh a residential

normally yeah and there's a

yes and um there's a work that's a

maximum square footage a square feet

that they can submit and so means not

too big

even though a building is double story

but if it's a balance isn't it for

for instance kind of a tellers do you

think that's a girl

so big right cannot because there is a

certain kind of point of

of building size or building area that

they are able to submit

they bring the plan to the authority so

draftsman second defendant

defender number three or the third

defendant is the engineer

again go back to what we learned before

uh who is the psp the the people

sorry the qualified persons who are

responsible

uh during uh for uh to oversee or to

monitor or to undertake the construction

of any projects

the qualified people that can become

psp's only three categories isn't it we

have learned that before

i hope you will remember this yeah

architect grossman plus engineer so in

this case

the engineer was also pulled in was also

uh was also um taking action against in

court

so he is a he was the third defendant

first defendant was mpha the local

authority

mpha majesty

that was where the site was located

building plan was submitted to npaj so

naturally mpaj was sued because they

were the local authority responsible

in um passing or in uh approving

the building the submitted building plan

the plan information

the earth works and also the last one is

what matters lamenters you don't

they don't approve but you submit at

osce after that the state authority will

we'll um look at the land matters now

in land development anyway fifth

defendant arab malaysian bank

okay uh owner of the land at the rear so

again

as what i told you just now there were

two separate developments occurring at

the back of

um block one okay so arab nation

who was a bank was the owner of land at

the rear

as sex dependent okay you have tropic

trophy is a company

company who was doing the land clearing

for the fifth for our malaysians like on

[Music]

but the thing to do first is to clear

the land so

the company who did the land clearing

was tropic seventh defendant

was metro lux so this is another owner

of the land uh

owner of the netherlands okay which is

higher land

so you have um highland towers

block one is at the back at the back of

block one you have the arab malaysian

arab malaysian bank upper level

um um

upwards okay before i put another lamp

at the back so you have the highland

towers you have a domination you have

another land

so the other land at the back is metro

laksa the name of the

metro lux another developer the owner

who was

going to develop or who was actually

developing on

its defendant it's project manager

for service uh defendant so in this case

uh for metro lux because metrolog's done

in advanced stage

adaptation is just clearing the villain

the initial stage

doing the earthworks still doing the

earthworks

but the um the metrologs

are in an advanced stage of development

of construction

anyway ninth defendant

why did you give the approval so they

wanted to

um to to test whether or they want to

look whether

nine defenders were also liable or not

because they felt that

they are the ones in charge of land

letters they should be sure

they should have some responsibility in

the building collapse as well okay

go to number 10 test defendant director

of lands and mines again regarding land

matters yuga okay

so you have the mpaj who were in charge

of the planning permission approval

building plan approval earthworks and

then you have slangostic government and

directors

lands and mines who were in charge of

the landmates approval

okay now actions taken action means

the kind of law all the kinds of action

the the action to means issues

topics a lot of topics that they wanted

um sue

they wanted to to get the other

party to be liable

the first one is negligence negligence

the second one is nuisance kasha

banggood nuisance

okay the third one is strict liability

under raelians and fletcher now

negligence i hope everybody knows this

kachuaya negligence means there must be

uh lost there must be loss

before negligence will only sorry not

loss

injury injury that's the correct one

injury but

in later cases later cases

have defined later law cases have

defined injury to not

only and not only include

bodily injury or physical injury

but also mental injury plus also now

economic loss economic loss but economic

loss must be careful

because pure economic laws that cannot

be proven

courts have rejected there's no

negligence in those kind of cases

but if the uh economic loss can be

proven

but then for instance because of the the

omission or the act of one party

okay you you can prove that it led to

the

economic loss experience by yourself

unable to do receipts for instance

you can uh receive like you know repair

something your car

or uh you were supposed to get a stream

of money but you didn't get that stream

of money in terms of rental right now so

that can be proven if that can be

established

and the evidence to can be established

that can claim uh economic loss

as a part of negligence due to the act

or omission of another party because

negligence economic loss under

negligence nuisance katya gangu

nusselts has to do with enjoyment

exclusive enjoyment of your land you are

being

interrupted the exclusive enjoyment of

your property is being

interrupted then you can claim nuisance

you don't you don't have to experience

injury or you don't have to experience

loss but negligence

negligence you have to establish injury

in order an injury is caused by

an a breach of duty of care okay are you

remember what you learned before breach

of deity of care

duty of care sublime you can establish

breach of detail of care

and before you can link that to injury

you call back what you learned in year

one

yes but this is important to this case

in negligence

nuisance not so strict liability and the

right lands infection not so we are not

focusing on that now we are focusing on

negligence

now riley's inflection uh

involves injury to you or economic loss

to you due to escape

of something uh of uh what it was the

word

escape of a

buddhism of a

and it caused damage uh they may say

that escape and the thing

uh the thing that escaped can be water

it can be gas it can be but there must

be escape

escape

escape you can prove uh the

link to the in to the injury being uh

experienced then you can claim strict

liability under rylands and

fletcher okay last one is breach of

statutory duty okay this one states

reducting especially to the agency's

mph and to the state of

uh slango and also to uh director of

lands and mines a bridge of statutory

duty statutory

forces

duty so this is different from uh breach

of duty here

in negligence because here here ah the

duty of care and the negligence is not

put by any statute

but it's something that you owe

another person when there is uh what's

the word that is

um the reasonable man sorry the other

neighbor test can't remember neighbor

test and then at the

end of the reasonable pineal test and i

will show you

slides down now anyway so four

actions we are focusing on negligence

okay

and the plaintiffs argue that they have

been unable to reoccupy blocks two and

three related to the collapse

when um block one collapsed

the owners or the occupants and the

owners of blocks two and three couldn't

go in

because the whole area was called under

the declare kind of emergency area

unsafe area so they had to uh

they had to flee or they couldn't return

home

and get anything

and they feared that the two blocks

could

collapse following a block one yeah uh

collapse

um and but but the plaintiff's puny

argument is because is the

the uh the fact that they had been

unable to reoccupy not by ligna tinga

blocks two and three uh came as a result

mph's pre and post-collapse acts and

omissions

pre-collapse meaning the submission

building plan yeah

when your stage until post collapse

block one came down what happened after

that uh

the the the failure of the

authorities to ensure the

security of their homes i do they argue

that is post collapse

and omissions

owners of blocks two and three couldn't

live

in their homes or couldn't live in their

apartments

then

decision of high court remember there

were 10

then um defendants okay in this case all

captain so

one two uh culturally six nine ten

were liable can you recall who is 9 who

is 10 this is easy

state authorities the director of

lansing

scan the state director mastermind so

initialize

because they were just doing their

duties

not found liable okay so tropic

the state government the director of

lands and mines

not not liable not the rest ah the rest

were held liable

[Music]

whether you are a normal person a

student you have a duty of care to

others

also you need to get a capitalist word

of defenders new cells for some straight

liability for some

breach of statutory for some of the

responders but negligence to all of them

uh for all the defendants or responding

defendants

but in this case 6 9 10 not liable

okay so first defender remember who is

first defender the

developer fifteen percent depending on

portion of

uh liability any percent apportionment

of liability if you calculate you will

come

you will get um 100 so from the 100

liability

either

when the court decided on uh on a

compensation award

this 15 of 20 million for instance

canada so that's why they apportion the

blame

or portion the liability like this the

um developer 15

uh the second defendant who is the who

was the architect 10

third defendant engineer 10

4th defendant 15 fpga

fifth defender 30 this is our admission

seventh eight twenty percent each

the the the project manager and also the

anyway so that was the decision of the

high court

okay now we go to one by one we just

going to focus on the

um one two three four the architect the

second defendant okay

engineer the developer and also mpag

see how um the the the um

sorry the decision was reached

the situation um surrounding the

architect in this particular case

so he was only adjustment deep in

training was only a drastic

but he acted as a registered architect

and he represented himself as a

registered architect the reason being

at that time the uh the content sorry

the architects act

the architects uh sorry

we have the valuers appraisers as the

agents and foreign

1985 the same 1981

1981 sorry that the hassallah the one

for them they also have uh their act for

their profession the architects act

so uh at that time okay

um this particular defendant

and he was given he was given a special

license and we can say that i i just

want to

simplify to you the specialized scenes

okay uh but in mind it was a

1975 we had at that time there

was a lack of uh

of architects of full architects in

malaysia and at that time remember our

appraisers can

ah in our valuers appraisers as the

agents when you act appraisers

okay uh uh stands for those valuers

who just had spm who just had not even

diploma they

leave that um they have been practicing

as a valuer

for so many number of years so when

uh 1981 came the act was passed

our ex i'm talking about our forget

about the architecture

in our uh the value of spinner case okay

when 1981 our act was passed

people who have been uh who have been

um their main occupation has been

valuing

property scan even though they haven't

obtained they didn't obtain

um proper um proper

qualifications uh diploma degree

in relation at that time they were

recognized as valuers but they

came under a special category known as

appraisers

so but they wanted to ease the the

transformation between uh the by the

free act pre-1981

and then after uh 1981 after 1981

report must have their registration so

that is basically what the

1981 act our acts and value was

appraised as the agent's reaction

but it's not fair to the people who have

been um who have been

performing malaysian tasks since 1960s

during the transition period okay these

people who have been

acting as valuers they were given the um

the title appraisers so same in this

case at that time

we go back to this case he was only

adjustment he didn't receive any

uh qualification as a proper technology

he was he was not the architect that's

what we know now a lot of registered

architects

but he has been practicing and also at

that time he had a specialized sense

due to uh to draw la

uh what architects what training i

tested my license i can't remember i

just read i just know

but anyway he got licensed but he is

actually

there's a difference there not an

architect that can do architecture

plus much appraisers appraisers

but they are not known as uh valuers

summer the adjustment

anyway uh he represented himself he

presented himself as

an architect and he he did he carried

out architect

which which involved in the case of

highland towers he drew

the layout plans he submitted the layout

plans

on behalf of the developer not just the

other types of plans required uh

building plan for approval he was the

one who grew

and also submitted so essentially yes

essentially

but if we take this knowledge to what we

learned last week

isn't he well isn't he the psp to the

project somewhere again

so he was the psp he was the one that

made the plans

anyway um according to law

draftsman only legally allowed to draw

and submit plans

for less residential less than two

stories and for a

limited number of square feet but he as

i said earlier he got a special license

under

something category i cannot remember

um but local authority did not really

check uh the second defendant's

credential did that check the main

cluster

just accepted his plan application hello

remember that was the old system of

building certification okay compared to

the new one ccc

uh before so uh the year it was finished

1978 oh uh since cf were issued

based on the plans that the second

defender prepared

a support issue issue sampling issue

and not the psp but at that time it was

issued by this one local authority so in

this case local authority

time first of all they approved the

building plan

second they issued the certificate of

fitness for occupation for highland

towers

okay that's why uh mpaj was

also sued someone plaintiff any

plaintiff

the the uh 73 uh

people just now they are claims okay the

second

uh respondent presented himself not

responding defendant presented himself

as to be a suitably qualified competent

and skill person to design prepare and

sign architectural and other

building class they represent himself as

an architect basically

thus katena does the second defendant

has breached

a legal duty of care allah you check out

architect then

you should have breached your deity of

care by the kami compared to the

plaintiffs as purchasers

who take reasonable care and diligence

in ensuring safety and compliance in the

design and construction of

highland towers

which is you supposed to ensure safety

and compliance in the

design and construction so that was the

claims by the

plaintiffs so they claimed defense ah

they claimed in me by the sec by the

second defender

second yeah second defendant there's no

duty of care

if there's no duty of care then there's

no breach of detail of care then city of

masala

basically is like that when it could

depend on you have to follow the

sequence first establish detail of care

then establish breach of detailed care

then only labor

so in this case the the defense by the

second defense uh second defender was

the first requirement just now okay that

would

that didn't exist therefore there's no

bridge

of care because i'm just the last man

i'm not the architect

architect who has the um has the

duty of care i am just a drastic man

it's two different defense look here if

i indicated even

if there was duty of care it was not

bridge data

breach so but he only designed the

apartments not involved in design

supervision and construction of drains

so together

just now uh he didn't breach his duty

because he as a draftsman he only

designed the apartments he is not

supposed to do

the the drains rubble walls and

earthworks

uh that's what i'm just a drastic i'm

not that is what he's saying

i'm just a grass man i just draw the

building i'm not supposed to

um to interfere i'm not supposed to

submit

for drainage for rubble walls rubber

walls to

retaining walls ready to rubble walls

and earthworks i'm not supposed to do

that

um because an architect is supposed to

do all these things it's money

and the building plan uh you got

supervised uh the building

and also the drain drainage rubber walls

can remember the psp the 21 stages of

construction

architect the whole thing from a until

from earthworks anti-landscape the

masola drainage hand and we have learned

that before

so he argued that i'm not an architect

i'm just a dress man rashman

designs the building full stop oh i'm

not i don't care about the site that is

not supposed to come under me

that was his defense and also

he tried to shift the blame to the

fourth

fifth seventh and eight defenders

that was um

you have to blame huh you have to blame

mph

sorry you have to blame arab malaysia

and mph

and pajay adaptation

metrolox and also you have to blame the

[Music]

tropics earthworks but the land clearing

adaptation not me because i have done my

job

i have designed the apartments okay that

was the

defense by the second defendant anyway

judgement so judge shakapur

the high court duty of care as for the

details

of care the judge um decided munnar

decided has to follow the law

but first of all he has to establish

whether that's duty of care

then only he can proceed with finding

whether there is there has been

negligence or not

because negligence premier opinion

requirements we have to establish uh

detailed care then

whether the detail of care was breached

of care anyway how to establish the

detail of care

he applied the neighbor test what is

neighbor test again i hope you remember

what you

learned before neighbor test is the

proximity uh proximity

between the president being accused

for negligence

[Music]

because if you for architects

of course when you design something of

course you will have the

i can look at the you design computer to

just the um developer of course

developer will eventually sell that

so you uh eventually uh subscribe

of care so was there a bridge of that

duty of care

that would breach the support that um

the way

to establish the bridge whether

there was a breach of detail of care was

to apply

the test of reasonable man ah reasonable

manners

how will the reasonable man think uh

in in undertaking the duties so in this

case

the second defender was actually

grasping he didn't represent the radius

an architect should foresee dangers of

improper inadequate and insufficient

drainage systems

that's why your friends architect

architects

the training is like that very strict uh

because they are

very very very mindful of the fact that

building failures can lead to fatalities

to deaths

to injuries

[Music]

uh major consequences deaths for

instance

injuries for instance so architects

should foresee dangers of improper

inadequate insufficient journey system

so in this particular case um the second

defendant

neglected the basic duty so basic duty

to implement iraq a proper

adequate

therefore he breached the duty of care

so liberal so each other the court

decided

on the liability of the second defendant

who was the architect for

highland towers so we go to the engineer

engineer uh the third defender actually

they brought it down architect

engineering anyway uh interesting yeah

the third defender

d3 was a qualified civil engineer so

different from depending uh from the

architect just now architecture

in this case he definitely was a

qualified civil engineer

no problem with um

appointed by highland towers developer

okay

his scope of work comprise the

structural aspects and drainage some

uh typical civil engineering school work

i think about structural aspects and

also the drainage so anybody

else about uh indiana

landslide again uh d3 used welded rail

piles as foundation i need technology

welded rail piles as foundation although

concrete parts were better

real past foundation was accepted in the

engineering and

building industry during the time of

construction in 1975 to 1978

okay technology rail welded rail piles

bhagavata foundation

oled industry as the norm as the

standard

spy

a concrete pile instead of using the

rail piles as well

because that simple answer because that

was the

industry standard sumo orange uh welded

rail files

but the seal up the problem was the

drainage the inadequate drainage

the third defendant only built ten

percent of drainage approved by mpha

that's why the cfo was obtained yes cfo

was

was uh given by mpaj because they relied

on the statement by the third defender

that the drainage was 100 percent

complete the

spotlight is certified yeah

as we said before the 21 stages and

under the ccc system

must be certified by the 70 percent

slash contractor then

then finally the psp must check we said

that before

discipline okay plaintiff's claims the

plaintiffs

the third defendant designed unsuitable

foundation remember just now

welded rail piles against concrete files

because you are the civil engineer you

should know this and answer

that was there a claim by the plaintiffs

and took um further republicans or to

argue to me

um and the third defender certified that

drainage would

complete 10 such a complete gun

the main points

so the defense i don't know why did the

defendant put your answer to this look

later on see what

he answered to this one why they got 100

complete but the height

of 10 completed he relied on developer

to properly construct retaining walls

he said that us because yes okay he's

the civil engineer

but his supervisors so the contractors

or the

builder of the highland towers come from

developer developer must

uh should be the one who uh construct

the retaining walls

so salah developed so he tried to shift

the blame to development

then uh this one is is his

um defense against um the proclaim

that he certified drainage com as

complete

so his defense was the drainage work was

not completed about because the

developer elect fund developer

do it much money sign up and drainage

and then uh the over budget because the

road level need to be brought down

assuming

leveling to fit the drains and

prohibition of

rock blasting like this lasting drainage

you saw the photos of nearby detached

houses

it could be dangerous to them

nuisance damages

to the roofs for instance if i do rock

blasting so i couldn't do that therefore

i couldn't do

um excuses

defense ah in court judgement so this is

the

decision at high court first one

regarding detail of care data

of course uh duty was to ensure the

safety of the buildings he designed and

built

it to duty is established you are the

civil engineer

so duty was there was there a breach of

this duty

of care which is to ensure the safety of

the buildings

as i said before was the accepted

industry

or is the norm was the norm at that time

rail piles rather than concrete piles

concrete parts are more

a stronger actually yeah uh but anyway

that's another

story but at that particular point

rail pass was the norm in the industry

defender 3 was considered to have acted

reasonably

reasonably you depend

on other civil engineers at the time no

bridge of duty

dalam high file type however

however as a civil engineer

the third defender should have

reasonably foreseen

the danger of landslide at the slope

behind highway towers that

produce will produce a lateral load

against the foundational electorate is

like this

that reload against the foundation

foundation to fail so he as the civil

engineer who

he should have foreseen that the mud

coming downhill

landslide coming downhill it will cause

the

foundation to fail he failed to foresee

that therefore he breached his

duty of care drainage synthetic

more alert that drainage is important

for heel slide

heel slope slope developments

regardless

for not completing drainage the third

defender still

owe duty of care to the purchasers must

say identity of care then soda bridge

depending on detail of care therefore

liable

uh for the developer the first defendant

the plaintiff's claims the first

defender did not employ a reasonably fit

competent skill and qualified person i

needed

to draw and submit uh the building plans

and the first defender plaintiff cutter

the first defender did not check the

second defendant's qualification just

now

he's not a proper architect he's just a

draftsman

and the first defendant did not

construct sufficient

and adequate retaining walls on the

malaysian land

at the back and the highlander was site

according to the surrounding turret

terrain soil condition and drainage

requirements

sorry the claim from the plaintiffs was

the developer failed to

build the retaining walls uh having

known the or having uh

having be able to anticipate at the kind

risk um of a hill slope development they

should have done that into argument by

the plaintiffs

and then drainage uh young insufficient

the the plaintiff also claimed that the

first defendant constructed drainage

system that was insufficient

to cook for proper and adequate drainage

of water from the slope

and the e stream and laggy in another

claim was the fact that the e-stream was

diverted

from its natural path to the pipe

covered

which ran horizontally across the hills

directly above the three

blocks of the diversion of the stream

pundi salah

then the first um another

claim by the plaintiffs is the fact that

the first defendant the developer

obtained cfcfo the certificate of

fitness

for occupation father high while high

the drainage system

was incomplete so you shouldn't have

um applied for the

issuance of uh cfo from the local

authority at that time

knowing that the drainage system that's

yeah knowing

much money you know that drainage system

that's here somebody can do it whether

the civil engineer to see up kind of

your dreams okay

so what was the judgement judgment

what's that deity of care ending

okay you have to be careful where will

the water flow after that kind of i have

to be very careful

now in in the case of a diverted stream

the high court relied directly on

greynock

uh corporation versus caledonia railway

corporation at 17.

so this is a very established

established case okay

but you got the snail in the bottle so

we follow this one the

the number two the original president

president of the uk

we relied on this particular case also

we have um accepted this before

in the xium fight sawmill spinner case

1984

there is a duty for someone who

interferes with the course of the stream

to ensure that the substitute drain have

the capacity to carry water

even by extraordinary rainfall

the natural the flow or the natural

path of the stream you have the duty to

ensure

that water has a way to move to another

place

it's your

the stream is liable uh liable for any

damage

due to inadequacy of the substitute

required drainage that's

what you call then the person who

diverted the stream

will be held liable huh i will

there was a beauty and there was also a

bridge of that duty

day one was like the developer was held

liable

in the case of the qualifications of the

architectures now the two

yeah not liable because the court held

that

it's only liable if the works were off

and extra hazardous nature

now what about the fourth one okay what

what

what were the claims uh from the

occupants

and also the owners against mpaj i may

get interested

but just now the reason why i discuss

architecting engineering is because to

alert you guys later on because you are

going to work

as as professionals we have a

duty to our clients improve the facts

the points that i want to stress

upon you and the reason why i discuss

mph's amateur

is because i want to tell you later on

when you work

you are open you are vulnerable uh

approved for such liabilities

careful in undertaking your job because

you have a duty

of care to your clients again as i said

um financial loss okay economic loss

pure economic loss security

proof of america really like but

evolution report you recreate like

[Music]

be careful okay now we go to the fourth

defendant which

uh is the nph magician iran and

panchayat

now the claims by the plaintiffs any

claims near the fourth

defendant and the aj did not take

reasonable care

skill and diligence

second one um

claimed mph did not take reasonable care

skill and diligence in ensuring

construction of proper drainage and

rubble walls

on the back on the arab national land

before issuance of

cf and to ensure the safety of the

uh hill slope before if you want to spot

it to the other

rubble walls rubber walls and also

drainage

because any new development up here okay

again

this is something i forgot to mention

land clearing

what happened what happened then land

clearing cuts down all the trees right

when the uh rain falls down actually the

roots of the trees that they

they serve and they take the water in

cut

for their photosynthesis and things like

that once you cut down the trees once

you do

land clearing not only you lose

the water absorption capacity of the

roots too could work you don't have any

kind of pee

that you put it down to you don't have

any protection can the rain will

directly fall to the ground can cause

erosions

uh the water flow downhill then

landslide mudslide why

uh tropic was also psychotropic

the land owner at the back was uh

uh found like because of their action

in clearing the land or instructing

to clear the land no many bug can no

trees

therefore no absorption of rain water by

the roots of the trees

no uh protection from the canopy of the

leaves the tree leaves for the rain for

rain drops to fall to the ground

okay anyway we'll go back to this one

so um plenty of claims

the defendant fought did not take

reasonable care

but then ensure proper drainage and also

rubble wasted that debate

and also mtaj cartelia by the

claimed by the plaintiffs failed to

maintain drains and rubber walls also

tutu

and satu maintain maintenance of drains

and rubber walls after highland towers

was constructed

because drainage is under local

authority this one

we did not cover in our course

duties of local authorities one of which

is maintenance of streams

duty

responsibility

[Music]

to ensure streams are free from

pollution

okay now um then failed to

the mpaj argued by uh the plaintiffs

failed to take remedial action against

risk to surrounding lands after

block one collapse

because the whole area was at that time

they didn't know how dangerous or how

um the foundation of blocks two and

three will look at uh the conditions of

the foundations of

loss to entry technique then

another um argument by

another claim by plaintiffs the qatar

mph failed to prevent theft

and vandalism in blocks two and three

after lock one collapse

how to prevent can just put up uh tapes

last round but nobody dares to

petrol patrol the area

and another one is mph failed to

maintain history

according

so the claims just now what was the

judgment by

um high court one issue of care as per

uh was there duty of care by defending

four

yeah at planned approval stage and

during construction stage to use

reasonable care skills and diligence to

ensure adequate drainage and

safety so i do and when issuing

a cf in independent detail of care that

all buildings are safe until

after construction that drainage at the

slope was adequate

uh so at stages at 10 approval stage

when issuing the cf stage

after a construction stage ah i did

and then after collapse of block one

that preventive measures were taken for

blocks two and three against stimulus

tragedy was there a bridge court cutter

yes uh mph oh my god

because it open flood gate a flood gate

or it could open flood gates

to all local authorities to be uh in the

future if they

have similar cases like this okay

whereby

buildings uh sorry the the building

plans have been approved by them

and then building failure happen and

then you not claim against the local

authority habit

you open the floodgate you uh make the

local authorities vulnerable

to such claims it's about

imagine if one development local

authority have to pay

damages amounting to 2 million another

120 million

money and actually do it so that

decision was actually quite

um significant in terms of local

authority being survival

yes

more it could have more cases like this

that could happen in the future but

that's why i like mph

appealed however

yes

yes like yes there was there were duty

of care in

all the items that i mentioned just now

however

however judge referred to the sdba

section 95 are they going to butcher but

they cannot butcher all the laws

together i'm not in isolation

okay so yes liable in terms of detail of

care

yes liable in terms of breach of the

detail of care

but section 95 sub 2 of sdba

gave gives

for local authorities when being sued

for negligence in granting approvals or

inspecting building work so specific

immunity for local authorities

inspecting building works and uh

furthermore

look uh the high court this um

high court decided that this immunity

under section 95 sub 2

sdba applies to pre-collapse

the topic but not post-collapse

negligence yamana

failed to and there were two right to

prevent tests

the other one to ensure safety of the

collapse negligence and paj was found

still

liable by the high court of course

mpaj was not happy as i said earlier it

could open

flood gates of similar cases in the

future

so mpaj appealed all right so

uh bill actually all appeared but we are

more interested in mpg anyway

third fourth fifth seven eight so third

engine the civil engineer fourth mpaj

fifth arab nation seventh the

uh metrolux eight the the project

manager for metro

right all these defenders appeared at

coa

the architect didn't appeal okay

or fourth defendant we are concerned

about mpaj

okay with regard to post collapse

liability

okay the court of appeals set aside the

judgement by the high court yamagata

current and pag was the liberal they got

to know

92 sorry section 95 sub 2 sdba gave the

immunity

for both pre and post collapse

okay and uh once the high court stated

that the e stream was diverted by

uh implies twist at the

court of appeal in the high court in the

high court the

judge there the judgement of high court

they stated that the e-stream

in black block one just now was diverted

by the

defendant one the architect but the

court of appeal found that

it was diverted by the

mpaj by the fourth defender like a gun

twist

due to this new matter of fact mpaj held

to all

common law duty of care just not not

liable in terms of post collapse

negligence but but because of the fact

that there was a new discovery

discovery which was uh the court of

appeals stated that the e-stream

was directed by mph rather than the

architect

and pajay catherine owed a common law

duty of care common law means not

statutory duty of law

local government

you owe me actually you owe people a

detail of care again

so somebody like in this case a common

load of care too

and uh mpaj was found

liable so the gunner got another case

from the uk

cain versus new forest district council

mpaj was found liable

section 95 sub 2 of sdba

it was the immunity was seen as

qualified

immunity rather than absolute immunity

this is interesting okay qualified

immunity means you have to

qualify saturn or you have to fulfill

certain conditions

you don't you you may not be as a

local authority you may not

automatically

be comfort uh immunity and it's not

absolute you

may be found um

upper number to immune in at some

circumstances or some degree

okay but another degree you may be found

uh or another matter you may be found

um not immune

the interpretation of the different

interpretation by the court of appeal

he used they used another case regarding

a diversion of stream by a local

authority in

uk in the uk so because the facts of the

case almost the same

because in this at the court of appeal

now in the civil poor case and they

found that

actually their stream was not diverted

by the developer

by the architect it was diverted by the

i sorry yeah it was not d1 is the

developer sorry

so they said that the stream was not

directed by the developer

it was they are directed by the uh local

authority therefore following the key

independent case

came versus new forest district council

local authority and divert khan stream

and caused

damage later on can be found liable

to be president of um in the case of

kane and the forest district council

okay then uh of course

appeal to the court to the federal court

uh mpaj wanted to

be immune 100 and also not just

um for the pre and post collapse but

also in terms of the stream just now

so it went to federal court

now the mpaj la one

versus the other the the the appellate

sorry the respondents of stephen kwa and

19 and 72 others

2006 mpaj was held not

liable the federal court no

such a category the judge stated that

section 95 sub 2 gives

full immunity full no such thing as

qualified immunity you get the full

immunity to mpha for both pre-collapse

and post-collapse periods

so this was the cutting newspaper

cutting

of the article sorry the article on mpaj

punya result

that record mph has full immunity from

claims

the effect of course is input yeah local

councils cannot continue cannot

be held liable for losses suffered by

anyone should a building collapse

also justice he stated that

local authorities such as the mpha were

given full

immunity food no such thing as qualified

humanity

under section 95 sub 2 of sdba

from claims for the pre-collapse period

okay and furthermore i like reasoning

one of the reasons if local councils

were made liable it would open the

floodgates

opportunities for other cases to come in

to sue the local authority

uh claim for the economic loss and this

would deplete the

base can the council's resources they

are based

on resources

so conclusion the highland towers case

confirms that local authorities are

given

immunity balance in cases of building

failure

under the current system the declaration

of responsibility in the g1

g2 g21 forms for ccc means that the

professionals

okay architects engineers etc they're

the liability for any building failure

do you recal do you remember the bylaw

that is related to this statement

by law huh by lawyer related to this

statement

i don't want to give you the answer by

law

yeah declaration of responsibility is

what we call self um

regulatory system of ccc here's nearly

the professionals to regulate themselves

professional practice kind and this g1

g21 forms young other 21 building

components too

and all the uh certifications or all the

penguins all the signatures by

the respective uh submitting persons

is known as the matrix for

responsibility

21 stages yeah per in charge finally the

psp of the check right

so it's known as the matrix for

responsibility so more professionals

under their own

rules okay that's all for today

okay uh before i leave um

i think that's all but uh tutorial again

uh for this week you have a yes

okay everyone that's all from me i think

it's more than

the time that we allocate but anyway

you can read more on highland towers

okay bye everyone

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube Transcript:The Highland Towers tragedy: Facts and Subsequent court case

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
The Highland Towers tragedy: Facts and Subsequent court case