NEGLIGENCE

“DUTY OF CARE”
Dr. Sonny Zulhuda
Edited by Dr Suzi
 Outline
• Tort of Negligence
• Elements of Negligence
– Duty of Care
– Breach of Duty of Care
– Causation
• Neighbour Principles
• Contemporary Requirements
Reality Check…
GEORGE TOWN: A factory worker
who sued a private hospital on
behalf of her son, who was
permanently disabled in the left
arm after a forceps delivery, was
awarded RM72,000 in general
damages by a Sessions Court (Nov
2009).
IPOH: A row of pre-war
shophouses, which were
being demolished,
collapsed on a Perodua
Viva that was waiting at
a traffic light junction
and killed two people
and injured another (Oct
2009)
KUALA LUMPUR: Singer Amy Search
will have to pay RM18,000 to a boy
who was scalded by hot tom yam
soup at the former’s restaurant.
Sessions Court ruled on the ground
of employer’s vicarious liability (May
2010).
KUALA TERENGGANU: A foreign
worker was crushed to death and five
others injured at the when a pile of
concrete blocks crumbled
Oceanographic and Tropical Aquacul-
ture building at Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu (UMT),. The building is
almost 75% complete (Mar 2010)
KUALA LUMPUR: A widow was
awarded RM90,000 in damages in an
out-of-court settlement of a
negligence suit she had filed against
the Government over the death of her
husband, after he was allegedly hit by
a policeman at a roadblock (Jun 2010)
.
TEMERLOH: The
Pahang Land and Mines
Dept was found
negligent over
procedures involving the
issuance of a land title
that resulted in income
loss for two Raub
farmers. The court
awarded them a total of
RM113,008 in damages
(Aug 2010).
SHAH ALAM: The
magistrate’s court here has
ordered Malaysian Airline
System Bhd (MAS) to pay
an aviation company
manager over RM10,000
on negligence after it failed
to recover her luggage
when she returned from her
holiday in Vietnam (Mar
2010).
 Definition of Negligence
Lexical (dictionary)
• Lack of proper care and
attention; a careless behaviour.

Legal
• It means more than heedless or careless
conduct, whether in omission or commission;
it properly connotes(implies/suggests) the
complex concept of duty, breach and
damage thereby suffered by the person to
whom the duty was owing
Per Lord Wright in Lochgelly Iron & Coal v
M’Mullan [1934] AC 1.
 •The absence of such care, skill and
diligence as it was the duty of the
person to bring to the performance
of the work which he is said not to
have performed.
Per Willes J. in Grill v General
Iron Screw Co (1860) 35 LJCP
330.

• “Negligence is the omission to do something which a

reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
would do; or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do”.

Per Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

(1856)
Elements of Negligence

BREACH OF
DUTY OF
DUTY OF DAMAGE
CARE
CARE

Plaintiff must prove That duty of care is not

that there exists a duly performed or
duty of care on the breached; i.e. by the Damage occurred and
part of defendant commission or suffered by the
omission of the plaintiff due to the
defendant defendant’s breach of
his duty of care
 “There is no liability for
negligent conduct involving
harm unless the law exacts
in the circumstances of
each particular case a duty
Element of Negligence to take care.”

“DUTY OF CARE” Gill J. in Jaswant Singh v

Central Electricity Board
[1967] 1 MLJ 272
How to identify the existence of a duty of
care?

DUTY OF CARE?

APPLYING NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE!

Are they neighbour to each other?

If yes  there is duty of care!
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

• C, Mrs Donoghue went to a Cafe in

Paisley (Scotland) with a friend. The friend
ordered ice cream over which part of a
bottle of ginger beer was poured.

• When the remainder of the ginger beer

was poured, it was found to contain a
decomposed snail. Mrs Donoghue
became ill through having consumed
contaminated ginger beer. She suffered
severe shock and a gastroenteritis
(gastric flu).

• C sued the manufacturer of the ginger

beer. D argued there was no breach of
duty whatsoever between them.

• Court established a Neighbour Principle.

Neighbour Principle
The rule that “you are to love your neighbour”
becomes in law, you must not injure your
neighbour;

and the lawyer’s question, “who is my neighbour?”

receives a restricted reply.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or

omissions, which you can reasonably foresee,
would be likely to injure your neighbour…

Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

 Neighbour Principle (cont’d)
Who, then, in law is my neighbour?

The answer seems to be–

“persons who are so closely and directly
affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the
acts or omissions which are called in
question…”

Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

 Neighbour Principle (cont’d)
• Neighbour Principle involves an objective test
– asking a hypothetical questions:

• Would a reasonable man, who is in the same

circumstances as the defendant, foresee that
his conduct will adversely* affect the plaintiff?

– If ‘No’  P is not D’s neighbour  No duty

– If ‘Yes’  P is D’s neighbour  Duty arises
*harmfully or unfavourably
Extension of Neighbour Principle…
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] AC 1004

• D’s borstal* officers allowed seven boys to escape

from a training camp in Poole Harbour while they
were asleep.
• They stole P’s boat and caused damage to other
boats in the harbour.
• Plaintiff sued D for negligence. D denied
negligence & raised immunity.

• Held: the borstal authorities owed a duty of care to

the owners of property near the camp. There were
no good reasons of public policy for allowing the
Crown any special immunity in this respect.

• Liability restricted to the property-owners in the

immediate vicinity, their loss was foreseeable, and
would not have extended to other circumstances.

• Court should use the neighbour principle if there is

no valid justification for its exclusion.
*youth offender institution
 Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v
Mariam [1984] 1 MLJ 283
• The appellants (Felda) engaged a
contractor to weed and maintain a land
scheme in Pahang. Unknown to them,
the contractor sub-contracted the work.
The workers of the sub-contractor lived
in a Kongsi-house built by either the
contractor or the sub-contractor on the
land scheme.
The house collapsed, causing death of
an employee of the sub-contractor. The
deceased’s dependants sued the
contractor, sub-contractor and Felda.
Felda denied liability, contending that
since they owed no duty of care since
there was no contractual liability.
 Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v
Mariam [1984] 1 MLJ 283
Salleh Abas CJ:

• The decision of Donoghue abandoned a long notion that tortuous liability

depends upon contractual relationship.

• Those cases… establish that a person owes a duty of care even to persons
who have no contractual relationship with him, and that his liability to an
injured person depends upon whether the injury was caused by his act or
omission.

• The duty… was not derived from the contract..

But one which is cast by law in that because the danger
created by him, he must take a reasonable care to ensure
that visitors were not exposed to it.
 Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v
Mariam [1984] 1 MLJ 283
• Held (FC):
• FELDA is liable for negligence as FELDA owed duty of
care towards the deceased as an occupier of the
Scheme and had breached the duty in failing to
provide a safe kongsi house to the workers and
resulting the death of the deceased.
• Hence, it is settled law that despite the existence of a
contractual relationship between parties in an action,
liability in negligence extends beyond the contractual
obligations.
 Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 
House of Lords
• Caparo Industries purchased shares in
Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts
which stated that the company had
made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. In fact
Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,
000.

• Caparo brought an action against the

auditors claiming they were negligent
in certifying the accounts.

Held: No duty of care was owed.

There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the
auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which
the accounts were being used by them.
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC
605  House of Lords
• Lord Bridge (on the Caparo test)
– “What emerges is that, in addition to the
foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in
any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that
there should exist between the party owing the
duty and the party to whom it is owed a
relationship characterised by the law as one of "
proximity" or "neighbourhood" and that the
situation should be one in which the court
considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law
should impose a duty of a given scope upon the
one party for the benefit of the other.”
Caparo v Dickman (1990)

• Three steps to establish duty of care are; ie to ask

three questions;

1. Was loss to the claimant foreseeable?

2. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties?
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of
care?
 Caparo is the landmark
case which has created
the tripartite test in
establishing duty of care.
In claims for economic loss, there
must be a common purpose, a
proximate relationship, known
communication with expected
reliance and actual reliance.
There was no proximity as the
defendants (Dickman) knew nothing
about Caparo.
This test departs from Donoghue v
Stevenson and the Wilberforce test
laid down in Anns v Merton London
Borough Council which starts from
the assumption that there is a duty
of care and that harm was
foreseeable unless there is good
reason to judge otherwise.
Whereas Caparo starts
from the assumption no
duty is owed unless the
criteria of the three stage
test is satisfied.
One of reasoning in
Caparo: Allowing claim
would allow “liability in an
indeterminate amount for
an indeterminate time to
an indeterminate class”
 Foreseeability
Steven Phoa Cheng Loon v. Highland
Properties [2000] 4 MLJ 200

• Collapse of Block 1 of Highland Towers –

due to a landslide caused primarily by water
emanating* from a damaged pipe culvert**
and inadequate drains on the defendant’s
land
(adjacent to plaintiff’s)

• Def denied duty of care because it could

not have foreseen the seriousness of the
injury or damage caused by its acts/
omission – it argued that the collapse was
not a reasonable probability but a fantastic
possibility
Steven Phoa Cheng Loon v. Highland Properties [2000]
4 MLJ 200

James Foong J.:

• Def’s contention was completely devoid of merits.

• A reasonable man might foresee that a steep hill
slope of a nature as that on the def’s land would
collapse if not properly managed and attended to.
• The collapse was not entirely unanticipated.
• Being immediate neighbours, there was close
proximity o relationship bet P & D. D ought to have
reasonably foreseen that his acts would likely to
cause damage to P.
• “the critical question is not the nature of the
damage itself, whether physical or
pecuniary, but whether the scope of the duty
of care in the circumstances of the case is
such as to embrace damage of the kind
which the plaintiff claims to have sustained.

• The decision in Murphy involves, as I have

mentioned earlier, the application of the
Caparo test which takes into account the
elements of foreseeability, proximity and
the additional requirement of justice,
fairness and reasonableness.”

– Steven Phoa Cheng Loon v Highland Properties

[2006] 2 MLJ 389
 Foreseeability
Ku Pon v Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd
[2004] 3 CLJ 466; [2004] 6 MLJ 253

• P’s family members were

kidnapped.
• D (owner of Sin Chew Jit Poh)
published an article regarding the
kidnap victims.
• P sued D for negligence for
causing an inaccurate and untrue
report which led the kidnappers
demand additional ransom.
• The ransom could not be fulfilled
and negotiation broke down.
Ku Pon v Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd [2004] 3 CLJ 466; [2004] 6
MLJ 253

• Suriyadi Halim J. dismissed P’s claim:

– Foreseeability of harm is one of the necessary ingredients

before duty of care could exist – though it alone is not
sufficient.
– No reasonable man could have foreseen that P would be
injured by such reporting in the local vernacular*.
– The injury was not even successfully established. Even if P
had suffered actionable injury, the foreseeability that the
article would cause injury was a mere possibility only and
not a high probability or highly likely.
– P had also failed to establish the relationship of proximity
and that it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose
liability on D.
 Proximity of Relationship

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

• Court:
– “I think that.. Proximity be not confined to
mere physical proximity, but… was intended,
to extend to such close and direct relations
that the act complained of directly affects a
person whom the person alleged to be
bound to take care (i.e. the D) would know
would be directly affected by his careless
act.”
Yuen Kun Yeu v. A.G. of Hong Kong [1988] 1 AC 175

• P had deposited money to a company that

subsequently went into liquidation – P took action
against D (representing the Commissioner of Deposit-
taking Companies) – arguing that D’s failure to stop or
revoke the company’s registration before P deposited
the money amounts to P’s loss of the money.

• Privy Council dismissed P’s appeal: to create a liability

for negligence, P must establish that there is a close
and direct relationship between the parties. Court will
consider all circumstances including the reasonable
contemplation of harm being caused to the P by D’s
failure to take reasonable care.
Yuen Kun Yeu v. A.G. of Hong Kong [1988] 1 AC 175

• PC found that the D (Commissioner) had no power

under the Deposit-taking Ordinance to control the
management of Deposit-taking companies.

• There was no special relationship between the

Commissioner and the company and its managers
that would have placed the Commissioner under a
duty of care to prevent the company causing financial
loss to its future depositors.

• Court: the relationship between P and D was not

sufficiently close and direct!
 Cited in Ku Pon v Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd [2004] 3 CLJ 466;
[2004] 6 MLJ 253:

• Deane J in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] had

explained the concept of proximity as follows:
– It involves the notion of nearness or closeness and
embraces physical proximity (in the sense of space and time)
between the person or property of the plaintiff and the
person or property of the defendant,
– circumstantial proximity such as an overriding* relationship...
. of professional man and client and;
– what might (perhaps loosely) be referred to as causal
proximity in the sense of the closeness or directness of the
causal connection or relationship between the particular
course of conduct and the loss or injury sustained.
*most important
 Proximity of Relationship?
YES NO

Between manufacturer & buyers Between stock authority & investor

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] Yuen Kun Yeu v. A.G. of Hong Kong [1988]

Between sellers & buyers generally Between occupiers & building authority
Champion Motors v. Tina Travel [1997] Murphy v Brentwood [1991]
Champion Motors (1975) Sdn Bhd v Tina Travel & Agencies Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 160

• The respondent/plaintiff was a tourist operator and the registered owner of a motor bus ('the
vehicle') which it had purchased from the appellant/the defendant.

• The vehicle was sent to the Road Transport Department ('the RTD') for inspection purposes
upon which the RTD detained the vehicle on the ground that the engine number supplied was
found to be different from the particulars of it kept by the RTD.

• The vehicle was detained for a total period of 73 days.

• The plaintiff claimed against the defendant for the loss of use of the vehicle while it was in
detention and for its depreciation.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

• As the relationship was between the plaintiff as the buyer and the defendant as the seller in
contract, and not with the third party assembler, the defendant owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff to see that there was no defect in the title in the vehicle sold.

• In order to discharge the duty of care to the plaintiff, it was the responsibility of the defendant
to ensure that the vehicle sold met with the specifications as contained in their contract of sale.
 Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC
398
• Facts
• The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the
footings of a house.
• The claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began
to subside as a result of defects in the footings.
• The claimant was unable to afford the required repairs, and was forced to
sell the property as a loss.

• Issue: whether the claimant was owed a duty of care with respect to the
damages which he had suffered as a result of the defective footing which
had been approved by the defendant.

• Held : Declining to follow its previous ruling in Anns v Merton London

Borough Council [1978] AC 728, the House of Lords held that as the
damage suffered by the claimant was neither material nor physical but
purely economic, the defendant was not liable in negligence.
 Fairness, Justice and Reasonableness
Caparo v Dickman, House of Lords stated :

• …in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary

ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care
are that there should exist between the party owing the
duty and the party to whom it is owed, a relationship
characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’ or
‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one in
which the council considers fair, just and reasonable
that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on
the party for the benefit of the other.
just
Reaso
fair nable
 Fairness, Justice and Reasonableness
Ku Pon v Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd [2004] 3 CLJ 466;
[2004] 6 MLJ 253

Suriyadi J.
• To arrive at the decision as to whether it is fair, just and
reasonable to impose a liability in negligence against
the defendants, it is inevitable that I consider…
– legal policy,
– the factor of where to draw the line so as to avoid the
floodgates of litigation being unleashed,
– the interest of individuals who may already have the protection
of statutes,
– factor of public awareness and deterrence against would be
offenders,
– where the parameters of liability should stop,
– the factor of freedom of press which has a social and moral
duty to the world at large etc. 
Fairness, Justice and Reasonableness
Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine [1995] 3 All ER
307

• A ship developed a crack in the hull* and a surveyor

acting for the vessel’s classification society
recommended permanent repairs in a dry dock.
This would have been expensive because the cargo
would have to be unloaded. For that reason, a
temporary repairs were made and the ship could
continue its voyage.

• It was also recommended that it has to be further

examined and dealt with soon after the discharge
of the cargo – However the vessel then sank on
voyage when the welding of the temporary repairs
failed.

• Cargo owners took action against several parties,

including the classification society (who undertook
the examination).
Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine [1995] 3 All ER 307

• House of Lords: assuming that there was a sufficient

degree of proximity between the cargo owners and the
classification society for the existence of a duty of care,
it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose such a
duty.

• That imposition would have affected the role of

classification society and international trade.

• Things to consider:
– It’s a non-profit making entity to promote safety
– Cost of insuring against potential claims
– Liability would discourage them to do a quick, independent
survey.
 Question of Policy Reason

• The question of policy reason was

commonly applied following court’s
decision in Ann’s case.

• However, the test in Ann’s case has been

replaced by Caparo’s

• Note: Policy reason is somehow

comparable to the issue of ‘fair, just and
reasonable’
Anns v Merton London Borough Council
[1978] A.C. 728

• Plaintiffs were tenants in flats.

• The flats suffered from damage
due to improper foundations
(which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as
required).
• The defendant Council was accountable for
inspecting the foundations during the flats
construction and had failed to do so.
• HOL held that the defendant owed a duty of care to
ensure the foundations were of the right depth.
 Anns v Merton London Borough
Council [1978] A.C. 728
• Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for
imposing a duty of care.
• The first stage being whether there is a sufficient
relationship of proximity between the wrongdoer and
the person who has suffered; in which case an on the
facts duty of care arises.
• Secondly if the first question is answered yes,
whether there are any considerations which reduce
the duty owed. Possible defences such as policy
reasons and disclaimer of liability would limit a duty
of care otherwise owed.
Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191

• HOL held that public policy demands

that a barrister should be immune from
liability for negligence in the conduct of
proceedings in court in the interest of
the administration of justice.

• An advocate owes a duty to the court

that transcends* the duty to his client.

• An advocate cannot fulfill his public

duty if he stands in fear of action by a
disgruntled** client and a suit against
him would inevitably involve
undesirable re-litigation of the matters
in dispute.
*surpass/go beyond
** angry or dissatisfied
Hill v. The Chief Constable of West
Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

• The “Yorkshire Ripper” murdered a

20 year old female student. He had
committed a number of similar
offences in the area over a period of
years.

• The mother of the deceased sued

the police authorities alleging
negligence in the investigations into
the previous offences resulting in
their failure to prevent the murder of
the deceased.
Hill v. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

• House of Lords dismissed the claim: no cause of action upon

the principal ground that no relationship of proximity exists
between the police and the deceased girl.

• The deceased was a member of the public at large, thus: her

risk is that of many other thousands of young women who
could potentially have been the ripper’s victim!

• Policy questions: Holding police to be negligent will:

– Have an inhibiting* effect on the exercise of police’s
judgment in their work
– Lead to series of trials and re-trials at the court
– Distract police manpower to those retrials, reduce their
crime prevention ability and burden the expenditures.
*preventing/impeding
 Duty of Care Owed to Plaintiff

• It is necessary to establish on the particular

facts of the case that the D owed a duty of
care to the particular plaintiff.

• The test is whether injury to that particular

plaintiff would have been in the
contemplation of the reasonable man.
 Palsgraf v Long Island R.R.* (1928) 248

• D’s servants negligently pushed X who was attempting to board a moving

train and caused him to drop a package containing fireworks. The resulting
explosion knocked out some scales, many feet away, which struck the P
and injured her.

• Was D liable to P? Did D owe a duty of care to P being in his position?

• Court: D did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because it was not in the
contemplation of a reasonable person that the explosion would cause such
particular damage in question.

• (Minority dissented that it was proximate result of the D’s negligence).

*railroad
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
• Appellant, when getting off a tram, heard the sound
of a collision fifty feet away. Shortly after, she saw
blood on the road. She then suffered nervous
shock that resulted in a miscarriage.
• In order to succeed in her claim, Mrs Bourhill had
to establish a duty of care being owed to her by Mr
Young. To find such a duty, the claimant must be
foreseeable, or proximate to the scene of the
accident.
• The House of Lords denied that Mrs Bourhill had
been foreseeable to Mr Young, at the time of the
accident.
 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
Lord Russell stated:

• Can it be said that John Young could reasonably have anticipated that a
person, situated as was the appellant, would be affected by his proceeding
towards Colinton at the speed at which he was travelling?
• I think not. His road was clear of pedestrians. The appellant was not within
his vision, but was standing behind the solid barrier of the tramcar. His
speed in no way endangered her.
• In these circumstances I am unable to see how he could reasonably
anticipate that, if he came into collision with a vehicle coming across the
tramcar into Glenlockhart Road, the resultant noise would cause physical
injury by shock to a person standing behind the tramcar.
• In my opinion, he owed no duty to the appellant.

See Also: Haley v. London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778

 Actionable Omission

• A person will not be legally negligent if he does

not make effort to save other person’s life while
he is capable to do so – but “he will be roundly
condemned by all right-thinking members of
society and will have to be answerable to God in
due course.. The law has never imposed a duty
on anyone to be a ‘do-gooder’ or a good-
Samaritan.”

Poh Swee Chin FCJ in Lew Thai v Chai Yee Chong

[1997] 5 MLJ 762
Lew Thai v Chai Yee Chong [1997] 5 MLJ

• P, worker at a tin mine, was instructed by D to

build an embankment during heavy rain at night
to prevent rising water from flooding the mine
– during the work, the mine collapsed causing
serious injuries to P – P sued D for negligence.

• Can D raise a non-actionable omission?

• The test of standard of duty in assessing the

negligence in such omission:
– The thing D did not do was a thing commonly done by
other persons in like circumstances
– It was a thing which was so obviously wanted that it
would be a folly (silly, stupid, crazy, reckless) in
anyone to neglect to provide it.
Lew Thai v Chai Yee Chong [1997] 5 MLJ

• Court: P was being under the control of the

D. D failed to take any precaution for the
safety by exposing him to risk of injury.
Such precaution includes ‘not to instruct P
to work under such risk’.

• D failed to take precaution by failing to ask

P to stop work. Also failed to tell P not to
drive a tractor there for work in view of the
prevailing great danger.
 Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] 2 MLJ
465
• per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:

• There was a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant
and there was a duty of care on the part of the defendant towards the
appellant. However, on the facts on this case, it would not be reasonable
to find negligence on the part of the defendant for allowing or for not
stopping the plaintiff from doing the work he was doing at the time of the
accident. The question to ask was whether a reasonable man would think
that to do the work at the time of the accident under the conditions then
prevailing was so dangerous that to allow the plaintiff to do it or not to
stop him from doing it constituted negligence.

• In the instant case, the defendant himself took out a tractor under similar
conditions and was doing the same type of work himself. This showed
that to do the work under such conditions was not so inherently
dangerous that the defendant himself would not do it.
TUTORIAL TASK (W3)
• Read the case of (i) Donoghue v Stevenson.
• Explain the concept of Neighbourhood
• Give 3 reasons why the above case is very
significant

• Please also read and present these cases:

• (ii) Mohd Nor Dagang Sdn Bhd v Tetuan Mohd Yusof
Endut [2001] 5 MLJ 561
• (iii) Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801
• (iv) Lok Kok Beng & 49 Ors v Loh Chiak Eong & Anor
[2015] MLJU 261 FC
• (v) Kerajaan Malaysia Ors v Lay Kee Tee & Ors,
[2009] 1 MLJ 1