I handle construction disputes and will try to explain what is meant by latent defects.

Basically, the easiest way to explain latent defects are defects which are hidden, i.e defects which does not appear during the early period. However, these defects had manifested during construction stage. The easiest example of a latent effect is a perhaps a bad foundation works which was not done according to specification/ drawing/ plans. It is only through the afflux of time that subsequently the defects rear its head.

The main problem of latent defect is to prove that the defect existed in the first place. Because through afflux of time, thing naturally deteriorate thus it becomes almost impossible to know if the defect had occurred in the beginning or due to fair tear and ware. This is when an expert / specialist is needed to prove such defects were latent.

The classic case of Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1 exemplifies a case study of latent defects. Note that UK has its own Latent Defect Act, unlike Malaysia.

However, the common law position as expounded in Perelli's case is adopted in Malaysia. Thus limitation of 6 years only runs when the defects could have been reasonably forseen/ identified. Hence, the DLP period plays no part in respect of damages due to latent defects.

Hope this helps to the TS above. (sorry I don't know how to quote multiple posts)

I am in claims.

As we all know, the construction industry in Malaysia is rather shady. A lot of $$$ involved. Thus, commercial interest sometime override the legal rights.
If you are in the industry, you will know who are the good employers and good main contractors and vice versa.

It is common for sub-contractors to provide warranty for works/goods provided, especially M&E matters. Hence, T&C is always a requisite and the warranty always forms part of the T&C submissions prior to hand over.

But, even with warranty, the end user usually gets shafted, as there is no privity of contract between the end user and the contractors. End users cannot enforce the warranty directly against the contractors (unless end user is the party which appoints the contractors). So, most of the time, if the developer / employers doesn't push the contractors to rectify, end users usually has no recourse but to sue the developer. Its a messy situation because most of the time, the developer wont divulge to the end user what type of the warranty is given by the contractors, but will give a global DLP as a warranty for the works.