TORT LIST OF Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Warning: TT: undefined function: 32 Warning: TT: undefined function: 32 happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016...

Description

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. TORT LIST OF CASES ACCORDING TO THE TOPICS TOPIC

ISSUES

CASE(S)

1. Elements of negligence Definition of negligence

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan

When does cause of action arises 1) Duty

Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v Tetuan Wan Marican Hamzah & Shaik & Lain-lain Heaven v Pender

Neighbor principle

Donoghue v Stevenson Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd Anns v Merton London Borough Council; create Anns Test Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd / Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd; applying Anns test Malaysia: Sathu v Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co Ltd Lok Kwan Moi v Raml b Jamil & Ors & Government of Malaysia Sivakumaran al Selvaraj v Yu Pan & Anor Uniphone Sdn Bhd v Chin Boon Lit & Anor

Not every wrong act give rise to liability

Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

i) foreseeability ii) proximity

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Malaysia: Eng Thye Plantations Bhd v Lim Jaswant Singh v Central Electricity Board

Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. Duty must be owned by the tortfeasor to Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co particular claimant Claimant does not have to be individually Haley v London Electricity Board identifiable by defendant; sufficient if claimant damage was forseeable

*tests to claim for Negligent Misstatement ------> The claimant can potentially claim when he succeed in establishing special relationship. Means that the defendant has duty of care towards the claimant.

Necessary to consider whether there ought to negative/reduce/limit the scope of duty *public policy reasons

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Establishing Special relationship a) special skills/formal transaction/ advisee rely b) voluntary assumption of responsibility c)reasonable for advisee to rely on the advice

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

fulfilled all test: have duty of care failed to fulfilled any of the test: no doc 2) Breach Definition

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Caparo Industries v Dickman; additional test i. did the advisor know the purpose of the advice at the time he gave the advice? ii. did the advisor know that the advice will be given to advisee to be used for that purpose? iii. did the advisor know that the advisee will use the advice without independent inquiry? iv. did the advisee act according the advice and suffer loss?

Benchmark: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co Winfield: he does not resemble any living human being – he will not fall below the standard of the law Relevant factors to see whether the defendant has come up to the standard State of knowledge Roe v Minister of Health N v UK Medical Research Council Magnitude of risk Bolton v Stone 2 factors: i. Chances risk occurring Paris v Stepney Borough Council ii. seriousness of damage/injury Utility of conduct / potential benefits of Watt v Herdforshire County Council conduct/risk Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. Gold v Haringey Health Authority Common practice Gray v Stead Aikbee Sawmill v Mun Kum Chow Morris v Hartlepool Navigation Co Paris v Stepney BC Bolton v Stone Cost & practicability of precautions Novices Nettleship v Weston Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority Wells v Cooper Professional standard Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee Maynard v West Midlands Health Authority Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital & the Maudsley Hosp Accountants: Mutual Life Assurance v Evatt Lawyers: Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co Hopp v Lepp Commonwealth countries Rogers v Whitaker Malaysian position Applied Bolam’s test Chin Keow v Govt of Malaysia & Anor Elizabeth Choo v Govt of Malaysia Hong Chuan Lay v Eddie Soo Fook Mun Asiah bte Kamsah v Dr. Rajinder Singh & Ors Kamalam a/p Raman & Ors v Eastern Plantation Agency Applied Rogers v Whitaker test (Johore) Sdn Bhd Ulu Tiram Estate, Ulu Tiram, Johore & Anor Practitioner (medical) have duty to Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor inform patient on information of risks RvW 3) Causation & Remoteness of Damages IN FACT i. single cause Apply but-for test Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee; claim failed.

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. Ang Chai Ha & Ors v Sri Jaya Transport Co Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat bin Mahmud & Anor Mohamed Raihan & Anor v Government of Malaysia & Ors; distinguish with Jumat ii. multiple causes McGhee v National Coal Board not apply but-for test Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority; distinguish with McGhee Performance Cars v Abraham iii. consecutive/successive causes Baker v Willoughby iv. concurrent causes Fitzgerald v Lane IN LAW i) direct consequence test Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd ii) Reasonable foresight test Re Wagon Mound Applying Re Wagon Mound Hughes v Lord Advocate Govt of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat Bin Mahmud & Anor Daughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd Jaswant Singh iii) Relevant factors associated with reasonable foresight test Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd; forseeable Tremain v Pike; not forseeable a) type of damage must forseeable Crossley v Rawlinson; unforeseeable Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd b) extent of damage is irrelevant GR that defendant will be liable albeit for the unforeseeable physical extent of damage Smith v Leech-Brain & Co Ltd i. eggshell skull rule Robinson v Post Office ii. plaintiff impecuniosity Liesbosch Dredger v Edison SS c) method by which the damage occurs Hughes v Lord Advocate is irrelevant Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd GR: once damage is forseeable, method Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd.; not applicable damage occurs is not important Local case: Susan Cheah; unforseeable iv) Intervening acts Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. Carlogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government a. natural event Scott v Shepherd b. third party The Oropesa Rouse v Squires Knightley v Johns; compare with Rouse Billion Origin Sdn Bhd v Newbridge Networks Sdn Bhd; no break in chain of causation Lamb v Camden Borough Council; damage too remote Ward v Cannock Chase District Council; damage forseeable McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd c. by plaintiff himself Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority; no novus actus interveniens established 2. Trespass: Intentional Torts 1) trespass to person Assault Winfield – an act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant a. Elements i) the mental state of the defendant

ii) the plaintiff must feel reasonable apprehension iii) capability to carry out the threat iv) believed that it will be immediate force b. can words constitute assault?

Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

R v St George Blake v Barnard Lord Denning’s obiter in Letang v Cooper Stephen v Myers Thomas v NUM Stephen v Myers

R v Meade & Belt; “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault” R v Wilson; “Get out your knives”, constitute assault R v Ireland; words instill reasonable fear or unlawful and

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. immediate physical violence does amount to assault Battery Winfield – the intentional and direct application of force to another person a. Elements i) the mental state of the defendant Wilson v Pringle Contrast with Scott v Shepherd Gibbons v Pepper Innes v Wylie ii) contact Collins v Wilcock iii) without the plaintiff’s consent False imprisonment Winfield – infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by the law a. Elements i) the mental state of the defendant W Elphinstone v Lee Leng San ii) the restraint must be a direct Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council; negligence act of defendant is not a false imprisonment consequence of the defendant’s act Aitkeen v Bedwell iii) the restraint must complete Grainger v Hill Bird v Jones iv) must be a wrongful detention Malek bin Husin v Borhan b Hj Daud Meering v Grahame White Aviation Co Ltd Awareness of plaintiff that he was being restrained or confined Murray v Ministry of Defence 2) trespass to land Winfield – unjustifiable interference with the possession of land a. Elements i) mental state of defendant ii) claimant must have exclusive possession of land iii) interference b. how can be committed Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Basely v Clarkson League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott Kerajaan Negeri Selangor v Sagong Bin Tasi Gregory v Piper

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. i) wrongful entry Nadchatiram Realities (1960) Ltd v Raman & Ors ii) continuing trespass Holmes v Wilson Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh Holmes v Wilson iii) placing objects on land Defined in The Six Carpenters iv) trespass ab initio Cinnamon v British Airports Authority Elias v Pasmore v) above and beneath the surface a. airspace Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co Wandsworth Board of Works v United Telephone Co Leigh v Skyviews &General Ltd; restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height necessary Karuppannan v Balakrishnen b. subsoil 3) trespass to goods 3.1 interference with goods Winfield – wrongful physical interference with possession of goods a. Elements i) mental state of defendant Wilson v Lombank National Coal Board v Evans ii) interference Kirk v Gregory must be a direct act Haji Awalludin bin Anidin v Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan iii) Goods iv) Claimant Penfolds Wines v Elliot 3.2 Conversion Winfield – wrongful dealing of another’s goods which deprives him of the use/possession of them a. Elements RH Willis and Sons v British Car Auctions i) mental state of defendant Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. Ashby v Tolhurst Hollins v Fowler Che Din Mohamed Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor and Chew Chan Seng ii) interference or dealing with good Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Ltd inconsistent with owner’s rights Foong Chee Chong v Inspector Mohd Nasir bin Shamsuddin & Anor iii) goods

b. claimant person who has actual possession or the right to immediate possession

Oriental Bank of Malaya v Rubber Industry (Replanting) Board Electro Card Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Mejati RCS Sdn Bhd & Ors Che Din Mohd Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor & Chew Chan Seng; includes a mortgagee who has a right to immediate possession Finder: Parker v British Airways Board

3.3 Detinue Winfield – wrongful detention of goods belonging to another; owner voluntarily put goods in another’s possession and the other refused to re-deliver a. Elements i) Defendant’s mental state PKNS v Teo Kai Huat ii) demand & refusal for return of goods General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd b. claimant Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali Lim Kim Hock v Lee Ah Koong 3. Remedies Damages

Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. 1) Compensate = money In principle of restitution in integrum To be put injured party in the same Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co position as he would have been – original position 2) must be recovered once and for all Exception: 2 distinct rights are violated and where the injury is P cannot bring second action upon same cause of action bc his injury proves to be continuing one more serious than was thought when e.g. may be recover physical injury and earning capacities. judgment given Types General: Ong Ah Long v Dr. S Underwood 1) general & special Special: Ryland v Fletchers 2) contemptuous Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook Kum 3) Nominal Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh Brar Rookes v Barnard 4) exemplary/punitive Khaw Ceng Poon & Ors v Khaw Cheng Book & Ors Roshairee Abdul Wahab v Mejar Mustafa Omar & Ors 5) Aggravated Injunction Order by the court which has the effect of either prohibiting the D from repeating/ continuing his act 1) prohibitory 2) mandatory Time of injunction Quia Timet Injunction before Perpetual injunction At the end of the trial After/during commission of the act Interlocutory Injunction alleged to be a tort Specific restitution of property Ors remedies Self-help 4. Defences Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS. General Volenti non Fit Injuria Lee Geok Theng v Ngee Tai Hoo & Anor Contributory accident Lai Yiew Siong Inevitable accident Fardon v Harcourt – Rivington Specific 1) Private defence Self-defence Defence of property 2) Necessity Private defence Public defence 3) Mistake 4) Consent

Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]

Anonymous Case 68 ER 1075 Creswell v Sirl Corpe v Sharpe Dewey v White Consolidated Co v Curtis Freeman v Home Office

Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.

Note: Again, sorry bc handwriting is hard to understand. Please read closely haha! Made by: NK / bitternuzz 2016/12 Tq to nas Contact: [email protected]...