THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
defendants dealt with the CFO issue. We are, of course, mindful of<br />
the High Court judgment in Dr. Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid v<br />
Jurusan Malaysia Consultants [1997] 3 MLJ 546; but, nonetheless,<br />
we are of the view that the weight of judicial opinion are against<br />
extending the Donoghue v Stevenson principle to pure economic<br />
loss (see D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England<br />
[1989] AC 177; Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC<br />
398; Kerajaan Malaysia v Cheah Foong Chiew & Anor [1993] 2<br />
MLJ 493; Teh Khem On & Anor v Yeoh & Wu Development Sdn<br />
Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 663). In Murphy v Brentwood Lord Keith of Kinkle<br />
said (at p. 468):<br />
The right to recover for pure economic loss, not flowing from physical<br />
injury, did not then extend beyond the situation where the loss had been<br />
sustained through reliance on negligent mis-statements, as in Hedley<br />
Byrne.<br />
In this regard, we wish to associate ourselves with the observation<br />
made by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Man B& W Diesel, that<br />
the cases in England (for instance, Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Ltd<br />
[1983] 1 AC 520), Australia (for example, Bryan v Maloney [1995]<br />
38