THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

defendants dealt with the CFO issue. We are, of course, mindful of the High Court judgment in Dr. Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid v Jurusan Malaysia Consultants [1997] 3 MLJ 546; but, nonetheless, we are of the view that the weight of judicial opinion are against extending the Donoghue v Stevenson principle to pure economic loss (see D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England [1989] AC 177; Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398; Kerajaan Malaysia v Cheah Foong Chiew & Anor [1993] 2 MLJ 493; Teh Khem On & Anor v Yeoh & Wu Development Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 663). In Murphy v Brentwood Lord Keith of Kinkle said (at p. 468): The right to recover for pure economic loss, not flowing from physical injury, did not then extend beyond the situation where the loss had been sustained through reliance on negligent mis-statements, as in Hedley Byrne. In this regard, we wish to associate ourselves with the observation made by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Man B& W Diesel, that the cases in England (for instance, Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520), Australia (for example, Bryan v Maloney [1995] 38
128 ALR 163), New Zealand (for example, Invercargill City v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 512) and Canada (for example, Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v Bird Construction Co [1995] 121 DLR (4 th ) 193), often quoted in support of the argument that there could be a finding of duty of care even in cases of supposedly ‘pure’ economic losses, upon a closer examination of the facts of these cases, it will be noted that in these cases the losses were in a sense not purely economic in nature; for in these cases the economic losses were suffered on account of damage to homes. Nearer to home, even in the Singapore landmark case of RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR (R) 653, where the Singapore Court of Appeal had allowed a claim for ‘economic loss’ for the tort of negligence, there in that case it will be noted that it was not a purely economic loss as the Court, among others, took into account the fact that the developers were negligent in their construction of the common property resulting in defects which the management corporation had to make good. 39
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Defendants (1) Rakyat
Page 5 and 6: (Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd) to be
Page 7 and 8: The Vendor shall do all acts and th
Page 9 and 10: y the vendor failing which the vend
Page 11 and 12: developer proceeded to construct th
Page 13 and 14: (b) the refusal on the part of the
Page 15 and 16: architects for the project, resulti
Page 17 and 18: CFOs under the SPA. As the learned
Page 19 and 20: … speak, short circuiting the con
Page 21 and 22: 4 CLJ 508 (but see now the Federal
Page 23 and 24: The above proposition was cited wit
Page 25 and 26: From the evidence in this case, I f
Page 27 and 28: consequences. The case law authorit
Page 29 and 30: First one has to ask whether, as be
Page 31 and 32: which ought to negative, or to redu
Page 33 and 34: contemplate would be affected by hi
Page 35 and 36: ‘neighbourhood’ and that the si
Page 37: certainly owe a duty of care to the
Page 41 and 42: that the layout plan necessitated e
Page 43 and 44: Peculiarity of High Court’s Order
Page 45: Date of decision: 5 January 2012 Da

THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?