Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

TORT — TRESPASS — TRESPASS TO LAND

In brief

  •  The owner of property has the legal right to use it in whatever legal way they see fit, including restricting other people from entering it. Trespassing, often known as trespass to land, happens when someone enters another person’s property without their permission or a legal right to be there. Trespassing can be a criminal, a civil tort, or both, depending on the location of the trespass and the state’s laws. Trespassing can also occur when someone enters another person’s property without permission and refuses to leave after being asked.

Examples: Criminal trespass can be charged against someone who trespasses onto another person’s property and steals their personal belongings. However, if a trespasser damages the homeowner’s property, the homeowner can claim under civil tort law.

What are the elements to trespass onto land? 

  •  Trespass to land is a common law tort that arises when an individual or the item they control enters another’s property without having the legal right or authorization to do so. The tort of trespass to land has two elements: an actual interference with the right of exclusive possession, known as the entry element, and an intent or negligence in entering the land of another.
  •  The definition of criminal trespass varies from state to state. However, the general elements of criminal trespassing typically include intentionally entering or remaining on another person’s or property without authorization or consent, and entering or remaining on another person’s or property without authorization or consent.

How does one establish trespass to land?

  •  In general, the plaintiff must show whether the defendant entered onto the land or whether the land belonged to another individual in order to show that the defendant is liable for trespass to the land. Furthermore, the defendant must not have had consent to enter and the trespasser must have caused damages.

Examples: Trespass to land examples include a person remaining in a cinema after the film has ended, a person remaining in another person’s home after being asked to leave, hunting on property where the individual is not authorized, and many more.

Sorotan Terkini

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami