JUDGMENT

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC:

Introduction

[1] It may be absurd to find that the appeal by the Plaintiffs, who were customers of a botched cosmetic procedure, against the premise owner and manager was dismissed. The Plaintiffs' claim is on breach of contract, the duty of care, and the tort of deceit by the First and Third Defendants. The Second Defendant settled with the Plaintiffs by paying RM40,000.00 and the action was then withdrawn against the Second Defendant.

[2] Two grounds of judgment are made for the two appeals lodged by the Plaintiffs who were dissatisfied with my decisions in allowing the First and Third Defendants' appeal on liability (Appeal No 77) and in dismissing their appeal on parts of the quantum for damages on losses suffered (Appeal No 76).

[3] This grounds of judgment deals with Appeal No 77, which concerns the liability issue in which the trial judge found the First and Third Defendants for breach of contract and duty of care together with tort by deception. I found them not liable.

[4] The dispute was complicated when the Second Defendant settled with the Plaintiffs, and the claim against the Second Defendant was withdrawn, but the Second Defendant did not