In tort law, a plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the defendant's actions and the alleged harm; insufficient proof resulted in dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

[1] These three related appeals before us are by consent of the parties, to be heard together, namely:

(1) Civil Appeal No W-02-1731-2009;

(2) Civil Appeal No W-02-1732-2009; and

(3) Civil Appeal No W-02-1733-2009.

[2] These appeals emanate from a High Court case, namely, Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No S3-23-58-1994.

[3] At the High Court, the learned judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. The judgment obtained was against all the defendants except the 4th defendant, Sime AXA Assurance Berhad, who, before the trial, in an interlocutory application, had successfully applied to the Court to have the suit against it be struck off.

[4] All the remaining defendants, except the 3rd defendant, that is to say, Pembinaan BSH Sdn Bhd (thus Pembinaan BSH Sdn Bhd is not a party to these appeals), were dissatisfied with the decision. They are appealing to this Court.

[5] The claim of the plaintiffs in the High Court action was essentially for damages for the tort of negligence allegedly committed by the defendants against the plaintiffs.

[6] There are also counterclaims by the 1st and 2nd defendants against the 1st plaintiff, also for the tort of negligence.

[7] The learned High Court Judge had allowed the plaintiffs' claim, but had dismissed the 1st and 2nd defendants' counterclaims.

[8] Having allowed the plaintiffs' claim for negligence, the learned High Court Judge did not determine the quantum of damages. Instead he made a further order that damages are to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar.

[9] We are allowing the defendants' appeal with costs, except with regard to the 1st defendant's counterclaim.

[10] The 2nd defendant is not appealing against the dismissal of its counterclaim.

[11] We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court, except that part of the High Court order dismissing the 1st defendant's counterclaim.

[12] Our decision is unanimous

[13] In our judgment, the plaintiffs (the respondents before us) have failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendants (the appellants before us) were guilty of committing the tort of negligence against the plaintiffs.

[14] In our judgment, the findings of the learned High Court Judge are against the weight of evidence, and, therefore, warrant interference by this Court.

[15] We will begin by setting out briefly the facts of the case

[16] The 1st plaintiff (Say Chong Sdn Bhd) is a company and the registered owner of a piece of land at Bukit Pantai, Kuala Lumpur. On this piece of land it had erected a double storey bungalow. It was built in 1980.

[17] The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (Dr Ng Say Hong and Mdm Chung Li Khoon) are husband and wife. They are the only shareholders and directors of the 1st plaintiff company. They and their two children were also occupiers of the bungalow.

[18] The 1st plaintiff's land is in fact a hill slope. The said bungalow was built at the uppermost part of the land. Along the hill slope, below the bungalow, the 1st plaintiff had erected a retaining wall of about 22 feet high and had filled it up with earth brought onto the land from somewhere else. This reta