Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE & VICARIOUS LIABILITY – VACUUM EXTRACTION GONE WRONG: COURT HOLDS HOSPITAL LIABLE FOR CHILDBIRTH INJURY

1. Summary and Facts

In Airis Nurhana bt Alfian (an infant suing by her father and litigation representative Alfian bin Zainudin) v Darul Aiman Sdn Bhd & Anor [2024] 6 MLJ 552 the appellant, an infant, suffered a brachial plexus injury during her birth in September 2013 at Putra Medical Centre (PMC), owned by R1. The delivery was performed by R2, a medical officer (not a specialist) employed by PMC. The appellant alleged that the injury was caused by excessive traction applied during vacuum delivery in the presence of shoulder dystocia. The High Court dismissed the medical negligence suit, ruling that the appellant’s mother, NAZ, was exhausted, justifying vacuum extraction, shoulder dystocia did not occur, the injury was not caused by excessive traction. Therefore, the appellant appealed against the findings on liability and quantum of damages.

2. Legal issues

i. Whether R2 was negligent in performing the vacuum delivery?
ii. Did R2 wrongly decide to use vacuum extraction despite the absence of maternal exhaustion?
iii. Did R2’s action result in brachial plexus injury?
iv. Whether R1 is vicariously liable for R2’s negligence?
v. Did the expert report be considered properly?

3. Court Findings

• The Court of Appeal (COA) overturned the High Court’s decision and held both R1 and R2 liable for negligence.
• Firstly, the COA found that Maternal Exhaustion not proven, the learned judge wrongly found maternal exhaustion, despite R2 never plead it as a reason for vacuum extraction. No evidence was adduced to show that NAZ was exhausted or and/or agreed to the vacuum extraction.
• The respondents failed to disprove the expert’s report. It was confirmed that brachial plexus injuries are commonly caused by excessive traction during vacuum or forceps extraction in shoulder dystocia cases.
• It was crystal clear that R2’s negligently proceed with vacuum extraction without maternal exhaustion and using excessive traction in the presence of shoulder dystocia.
• When deciding vicarious liability of R1, the COA ruled that R1 is liable referring to Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2013] 2 AC 1 and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 660 as R1 benefitted financially from R2’s services, NAZ did not choose R2 individually, she chose PMC which then assigned R2 and PMC created the risk by employing R2 despite her lack of specialist qualifications.
• R1’s caim for contribution and indemnity had to be dismissed because R1 as the employer generate profits from its employee, ought to bear potential risk arising from the activity.
• R1 as employer has the relevant control over its employee to mitigate the risk of similar harm in the future.

4. Practical Implications

The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces accountability in medical negligence cases, clarifies vicarious liability for hospitals, and ensures fair compensation for victims of negligent medical treatment.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN