Share
- The plaintiffs claim that Petronas Gas acted negligently and/or in breach of its duty of care which caused or materially contributed to the escape of gas, explosion and consequently, the fire that ensued.
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 18): Thirty-six owners, occupiers and tenants who were affected by the Putra Heights gas pipeline explosion that destroyed numerous homes and injured more than 150 people have filed a civil suit against five parties, including the Malaysian government.
The suit was filed on Oct 17 at the Shah Alam High Court in Selangor.
The 36 plaintiffs are also suing Petronas Gas Bhd (KL:PETGAS), Hong & Hong Homes Sdn Bhd, Pinterest Ventures Sdn Bhd and the Subang Jaya City Council (MBSJ).
In the statement of claim sighted by The Edge, the 36 plaintiffs' case against Petronas Gas is that they are owed a duty of care.
“By installing and operating gas transmission pipelines in the vicinity of the homes of the plaintiffs, Petronas Gas owes each of the plaintiffs a duty of care, whether under the written laws or common law, to exercise all reasonable care and skill to ensure that its gas transmission pipelines, from their design, fabrication, installation, testing and the safety aspects of operation and maintenance… do not cause harm or damage to the plaintiffs and their properties,” the statement read.
The plaintiffs claim that Petronas Gas acted negligently and/or in breach of its duty of care which caused or materially contributed to the escape of gas, explosion and consequently, the fire that ensued.
They said that Petronas Gas failed to carry out proper geotechnical and/or geomorphological studies on the area affected when designing the alignment of its gas transmission pipelines and in installing them, in particular having regard to the longevity of use of the said pipelines, among others.
Petronas Gas is alleged to have breached multiple statutory duties under the Gas Supply Act 1993 and the Gas Supply Regulations 1997, primarily by failing to ensure the safe construction and operation of its gas transmission pipelines at ground zero. In breach of Section 23(1) of the Act, Petronas Gas did not adequately survey or assess the suitability of the land before pipeline construction and failed to ensure that the pipelines were not installed in unstable, water-saturated soil prone to settlement and displacement.
Further breaches are alleged under Sections 30(6) and 30(8) of the Act, where Petronas Gas is said to have neglected to take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to the pipelines. This included allowing earthworks and construction by third parties in close proximity without proper safeguards and failing to notify nearby developers of the existence and alignment of the pipelines. The company also did not implement sufficient protective measures as required by the Energy Commission to prevent interference or damage.
Additionally, Petronas Gas is accused of violating Section 35 of the Act and several provisions of the 1985 Regulations by failing to ensure that maintenance and operation were conducted under the supervision of competent personnel. The company allegedly neglected requirements relating to design standards, emergency planning, maintenance documentation, and reporting of soil movement or defects to authorities.
The plaintiffs further contend that these failures collectively amount to breaches of statutory duties concerning safety, inspection, maintenance, and emergency response obligations.
Hong & Hong, together with Pinterest, are alleged to have caused further stress and damage to Petronas’ gas transmission pipelines by backfilling earth on Petronas land, thereby increasing the load and pressure on the pipelines. Their development and construction activities are said to have contributed to or worsened soil erosion and ground settlement at ground zero.
Despite having actual or imputed knowledge of the existence of the three gas transmission pipelines, both parties allegedly failed to conduct proper soil investigations or geotechnical studies before commencing their works.
As for MBSJ, the plaintiffs claim that MBSJ was negligent in allowing Hong & Hong, as well as Pinterest, to undertake development and construction works adjacent to its gas transmission pipelines on Petronas land.
This includes permitting Pinterest to proceed with its construction and sewerage repair works despite its contractor being under disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Development Board.
MBSJ is further accused of failing to adequately plan the development and land use around the pipelines, resulting in human activities that altered the natural topography and contributed to soil erosion and ground settlement at ground zero.
These conditions allegedly caused or exacerbated the rupture of the gas pipelines, leading to the escape of gas, explosion, and fire.
The plaintiffs allege that MBSJ breached multiple statutory duties under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, and the Local Government Act 1976 by failing to properly regulate, control, and plan the development and sewerage repair works carried out by Hong & Hong and Pinterest.
MBSJ is accused of granting or maintaining approvals for the works without ensuring they would not endanger adjoining landowners or public safety, and of permitting earthworks and excavation without adequately evaluating or approving safety conditions.
The plaintiffs allege that the Malaysian government and the prime minister breached their statutory duties under the Petroleum Development Act 1974, the Petroleum (Safety Measures) Act 1984, the Gas Supply Act 1993, and the 1985 Regulations.
Like Petronas Gas, the plaintiffs are claiming that the authorities failed to conduct adequate inspections of Petronas’ gas transmission pipelines and to properly assess the hazards posed by soil conditions to the structural integrity of those pipelines.
It is further alleged that the government failed to designate the Department of Minerals and Geoscience (JMG) and MBSJ as Inspectors of Petroleum, despite the establishment of MBSJ in 1997 and the known presence of gas transmission pipelines within its jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs claim that the government and the prime minister had breached their statutory duty by failing to exercise proper control, supervision, and enforcement over Petronas Gas. Specifically, the prime minister is said to have failed, in breach of Section 3(2) of the 1974 Act mentioned above, to direct and ensure Petronas Gas’ compliance with statutory safety, maintenance, and operational requirements for the pipeline.
Further, the plaintiffs claim that the prime minister and the government failed to establish or maintain an effective system of monitoring and corrective action to identify and address risks arising from ground settlement and soil instability at ground zero before the gas escape, explosion and fire occurred on April 1.
The statement of claim, which was filed by Messrs Tommy Thomas, also stated that the plaintiffs suffered personal injuries, physical pain, mental distress and anxiety, among others.
The plaintiffs are seeking general, exemplary, aggravated and special damages from the parties named in the suit as well as costs and other reliefs by the court.
According to the briefing by the Selangor state government and others given on Aug 8, 2025 to Parliament's Special Select Committee of Infrastructure, Transportation and Communication, some 511 houses were damaged in the vicinity of ground zero (Putra Heights).
Of the 511 houses, 103 were more than 40% damaged, 203 were less than 40% damaged, and 205 of them were not damaged.
Out of the 511 houses, 306 are located at Taman Putra Harmoni, making it the worst affected housing community by the fire.
Further, 399 motor vehicles were damaged, with 225 of them considered a total loss and written off, and 174 suffering approximately 50% damage.
As Penang girds itself towards the last lap of its Penang2030 vision, check out how the residential segment is keeping pace in EdgeProp’s special report: PENANG Investing Towards 2030.
