Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
SHANTA MANICKAM – Appellant
Versus
TEIK JOO CHAN SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case involves an appeal regarding a dismissal of a claim for negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the failure to cite the tortfeasor as a defendant raised significant liability questions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. the trial judge’s findings on control by the second defendant were pivotal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. the court assessed the nature of the plaintiff's pleading and its implications. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. determining an occupier’s duty involves assessing control over the premises. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 30) |
[1] This is the plaintiff's appeal from the Sessions Court against the dismissal of its claim against the second defendant arising from an accident on 23 April 2009. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the claim after a full trial on the ground that the second defendant, a corporation, was not liable vicariously as principal as the actual tortfeasor who was alleged to be responsible for the injuries which led to the death of the plaintiff's husband was not named as a co defendant.
[2] The appeal was essentially confined to the question of liability.
The Brief Facts
[3] One Letchumanan a/l Subramaniam ('the deceased') was employed as a lorr
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
