GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD vs SIU YAN TAM & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Table of Content
1. tam's negligence claim against ge. (Para 16 , 17)
2. decision of the high court on ge's negligence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. court's approach to appeals and evidence (Para 23)
4. court's observations on the findings of fraud and forgery. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. main issues for determination by court of appeal. (Para 25 , 26)
6. issues of fraud and the validity of forms (Para 31 , 32)
7. court's analysis of the living assurance claim. (Para 33 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48)
8. nature of living assurance claim vs. death claim (Para 34 , 35)
9. locus standi issues for tam (Para 36 , 37)
10. court's reasoning regarding tam's locus standi. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 51)
11. assessment of ge's negligence regarding cheque issuance (Para 42 , 45)
12. responsibility in cheque issuance under living assurance claim (Para 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54)
13. accountability and contributory negligence of collin (Para 55)

Tam's Claim In Negligence

[16] Tam's claim against GE was based on negligence in that:

(a) GE did not exercise its duty of care reasonably when it processed the LAC Form to protect the interests of Tam and the deceased;

(b) as GE had been notified of the death of the decea