Mei 31, 2022
claims, detainees, duty of care, police

TORT – DUTY OF CARE – BREACH OF DUTY

On June 28, 2021, X was arrested by a group of police officers upon being suspected of being a drug dealer. On the same day, he was sent to lock up to be detained for 60 days under S.3(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1985 (DDA). On July 3, 2021, X made a phone call to Y saying he didn’t feel well, and on July 5, 2021, X collapsed in the cell. X died before he reached the hospital.

Q: Did the police officer breach the duty of care?

A: Yes, X’s safety was in the hands of the police, and he would not be able to seek medical attention because he is not a free man. As a result, the police had a legal and statutory need to take reasonable precautions to ensure X’s safety while in custody.

Q: Can Y claim damages for pain and suffering?

A: Yes, it was plausible that the deceased (X) would have experienced pain and suffering in the days leading up to his death.

Q; Will Y be able to bring a claim against the police officer if the time limit has past 36 months?

A: No, under S.2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, it held that the suit, action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within 36 months.

Q: Can Y be awarded aggravated damages?

A: Yes, Y will be allowed to claim aggravated damages since, in a legal context, aggravated damages relate to unique and highly unusual compensation paid to a plaintiff when a defendant’s action causes the plaintiff to be humiliated and maliciously treated.

Q: Is Y barred from claiming exemplary damages?

A: It depends. Under S.8(2)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, it is held that it shall not include any exemplary damages, any bereavement made under subsection 7(3a), any damages for loss of expectations of life or loss of earnings in respect of any period after that person’s death. In Ketua Polis Negara & Ors v Nurasmira Maulat bt Jaafar & Ors, the Federal Court found that S.8(2) applies if the deceased’s constitutional right to life has been violated.

Sorotan Terkini

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

PROPERTY LAW – CLAIMING OWNERSHIP: COURT UPHOLDS LEGAL TITLE AND DISMISSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami