Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATO WONG TUCK MENG – Appellant
Versus
TOPSOLID PORTFOLIO SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCvC-49-01/2021]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's actions, including the construction of waterways and discharge of water from fish ponds, caused flooding and damage to the land (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant argued that the fish ponds existed prior to the plaintiff's ownership and that the water discharge was through established waterways, which did not cause flooding or damage (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's actions directly caused the flooding or damage, citing insufficient evidence and the possibility of natural causes such as heavy rain or runoff from higher ground (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish causation, and that the plaintiff did not meet this burden to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct resulted in the alleged damages (!) (!) .
Evidence presented, including witness testimony and expert reports, was inconsistent or lacked credibility, and did not sufficiently link the defendant's actions to the flooding or damage (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged nuisance for several years prior to the lawsuit and did not take action earlier, which undermines the claim of ongoing nuisance (!) (!) .
The court also considered the possibility that natural water flow from higher ground may have contributed to flooding, rather than the defendant's discharge systems (!) (!) .
The plaintiff failed to prove damages, including the damage to fruit trees and soil erosion, as evidence was either unsubstantiated or contradicted (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The claim was ultimately dismissed due to the lack of proof of causation and damages, with the plaintiff ordered to pay costs of RM40,000.00 (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
JUDGMENT
Preliminary
[1] In this suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendant trespassed or encroached onto the plaintiffs land or caused to be trespassed or encroached onto the plaintiff's land by building piping and waterways from the defendant's land to the plaintiff's land.
[2] Further, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the defendant unlawfully discharged or released or caused to be discharged or released water or waste from the defendant's fish ponds onto the plaintiffs property.
[3] Along with those declarations, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing any further unlawful acts and remove any items that act as a cause of the unlawful acts.
An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case
[4] The plaintiff owns a piece of land known as Hakmilik No. PM 147, Lot No. 4584, Kg. Sungai Tekali Part II, Daerah Hulu Langat, Mukim Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan measuring 2.362 hectares ("Lot 4584/plaintiff's land").
[5] According to the plaintiff, he is using Lot 4584 for agricultural purposes.
[6] The defendant owns a piece of land known as Hakmilik PM 212, Lot No. 4585, Kg. Sungai Tekali, Daerah Hulu Langat, Mukim Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan measuring 2.2205 hectares ("Lot 4585/defendant's land").
[7] The defendant's land is also expressly designated for agricultural use, specifically rubber plantations.
[8] Lot 4584 and Lot 4585 are adjacent.
[9] The terrain of Lot 4585 is higher than that of Lot 4584.
[10] Lot 4584 is being planted with fruit trees.
[11] As for Lot 4585, it is used for fish ponds.
Issues To Be Tried
[12] For the purposes of resolving this dispute, the court finds the following common issues relevant and sufficient:
(a) Whether the defendant unlawfully released or discharged or caused to be released and/or discharged the fish ponds water from its land onto the plaintiff's land?
(b) Whether those acts caused the plaintiff's land to flood, resulting in fruit trees being damaged?
(c) Whether those acts constituted a nuisance and trespassing onto the plaintiff's property?
(d) Whether the plaintiff consented to and/or the defendant had an easement on the pipes and waterways system before the plaintiff's occupation of Lot 4584?
(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from committing further unlawful acts and removing any items contributing to the unlawful acts?
court's Analysis And Findings
[13] In his suit against the defendant, the plaintiff claims that his land was flooded sometime in May 2020, causing soil erosion and trees to fall. Following further investigation, the plaintiff found that the defendant had built waterways and piping systems to discharge water and waste from the defendant's fish ponds onto the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff considered this to be a nuisance.
[14] On the other hand, the defendant claims that the fish ponds were constructed before the plaintiff purchased the land. In turn, the water from the fish ponds was released through a waterway or small river that passed through the plaintiff's land by making use of the defendant's piping and water flow system.
[15] For that purpose, the defendant further claims that it already had piping and water flow systems in place or existed prior to the plaintiff's occupation of his land. However, this did not cause any flood as alleged by the plaintiff. If there was a flood, it was caused by heavy rain or rainwater flowing freely from the nearby hill onto the defendant's land and subsequently inundating the plaintiff's property.
[16] Further, the defendant claims that the plaintiff had consented or that the defendant had acquired an easement on its piping and water flow system even before the plaintiff moved in. Regardless, the defendant had established a new waterway using its own costs and expense to discharge or release the waters from the fish ponds in other ways that would not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
