Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

CONTRACT – DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT

John and Sally had a signed contract that stated that if the contract was terminated, John would pay Sally the sum which would be decided by an independent auditor mutually agreed. Sally then finds out that John has breached the contract. The parties then agreed to appoint Brandon as the auditor to access the damages. The auditor Brandon came up with a report, assessing the damages at RM1,000,000.

Q: Can John later change his mind and disagree with the auditor Brandon’s report?

A: No. The parties are bound by the contract and their decision to appoint Brandon as the independent auditor. In the absence of any vitiating factor such as auditor Brandon’s report is tainted with fraud, collusion or partiality/bias, the parties are bound by their mutually-appointed expert. And in this case auditor Brandon’s report.

Q: Can John ask for the auditor Brandon’s report to be cross examined and later challenged in court?

A: Yes. He may cross examine and clarify auditor’s Brandon’s report. John may apply to cross-examine the expert under O 37 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us