Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 MarsdenLR 1210

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
YAW FUN FUN – Appellant
Versus
KETUA POLIS DAERAH GOMBAK SELANGOR & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Lim Kien Huat,Tang Keen Cheong ,Respondent Advocate: Azza Azmi,Rebecca Helden Leong Poh Leng,Ahmad Faiz Razali

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed; no negligence found against D1, D2, D5, D6. (!) - (!) - (!) D5’s negligence was found to be a SOP breach, not a statutory duty; no statutory obligation to blacklist under PA 1967. (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) Magistrate’s conflation of common law negligence vs statutory duty; appellate court notes lack of clear pleadings on duty of care. (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) Court cites Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire to discuss proximity and public policy in imposing duty on police; proximity not proven; public policy weighs against extending duty. (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) Dorset Yacht/ Hill principles applied to deny duty; action not appropriate vehicle to challenge police efficiency; public policy against liability in this context. (!) - (!) - (!) Court orders costs against plaintiff; no liability for the defendants. (!)

Question 1?

What is the duty of care owed by police and transport authorities in relation to preventing the sale of a stolen vehicle in the absence of explicit statutory duty?

Question 2?

What is the appropriate standard for evaluating whether the police officers’ failure to blacklist a stolen vehicle constitutes negligence (statutory duty vs. common law tort of negligence) in this context?

Question 3?

What considerations determine whether a public body (police/RTD) can be held liable for damages in negligence for actions involving crime prevention, given Hill v. West Yorkshire and related authorities?

JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] On 21 March 2019, this Court heard the Appellant's appeal against the entire decision of the learned Magistrate which was pronounced on 24 February 2017 in dismissing the Appellant's claim for negligence against the Respondents with costs of RM3,000.00. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal was dated and filed on 3 March 2017.

[2] Subsequent to the filing of Further Submissions by the Appellant's counsel and Federal Counsel ('FC'), the decision of the Court was pronounced on 19 April 2019 whereby the Appellant's appeal was dismissed with costs of RM6,000.00 to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondents, subject to allocatur.

[3] The Appellant then filed a Notice of Motion at the Court of Appeal on 9 May 2019 seeking leave to appeal against the decision of this Court. On 25 June 2020, the Court of Appeal allowed the Appellant's leave application and the Notice of Appeal was duly filed on 26 June 2020.

[4] In these grounds of judgment, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Court below, namely the Appellant as "the Plaintiff" and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents as the "1st Defendant" ('D1'), "2nd Defendant" ('D2'), "5th Defendant"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document