SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 MarsdenLR 321

HAIDAR MOHD NOOR, SHAIK DAUD ISMAIL, SITI NORMA YAAKOB
PENDAFTAR DAN PEMERIKSA KERETA-KERETA MOTOR MELAKA – Appellant
Versus
KS SOUTH MOTOR SDN BHD – Respondent



Advocates:
For the appellants - Abu Bakar Jais SFC For the respondent - Dato Dr C Das (E Ramasamy with him); M/s E Ramasamy &Co[Appeal from High Court, Muar; Civil Appeal No: 12-16-1992]

Public authorities have a duty to ensure accurate information in registers to prevent reliance-induced losses.

Headnote:This appeal concerns the duty of care imposed on public authorities regarding the accuracy of information supplied. The Court found that the appellants had a statutory duty to maintain accurate vehicle registration details, as their negligence in this role led to the respondent suffering a significant financial loss due to reliance on false information. The relevant statutory obligations set forth in the Road Traffic Ordinance 1958 were discussed, highlighting the responsibilities of registrars to maintain accurate vehicle records. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower court's findings on negligence and misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT

Siti Norma Yaakob JCA:

This appeal raises a very interesting and important point of law. It is this. Does the law impose a duty on a public authority to take care that all information supplied by him to a class of persons who relies on such information, is accurate and authentic. In this instant appeal, the public authority is the registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles ("RIMV") at Malacca and Muar, the first and second appellants before us. Together with the third appellant, they argue that it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose such a burdensome duty on them as it would practically immobilise their statutory function of registering and maintaining a register of all vehicles on the road. Furthermore owners of motor vehicles registered with them are supplied with registration books containing material particulars of the vehicles they own and more importantly such registration books carry a warning that the owners of such vehicles need not necessarily be the legal owners. Much reliance was placed by the appellants on this warning to absolve them from liability.

The respondent on the other hand maintain that the first and second appellants are not only statutorily bound to maintain a register of all vehicles registered by them but that such duty extends to maintaining a register that contains accurate details of the vehicles which can be relied upon by members of the public. Otherwise there would be grave uncertainty and chaos amongst the public who carry out private and commercial transactions in reliance of the information gleaned from the register.

To appreciate the point of law involved, we begin by setting out the factual background, which is in no way disputed.

The respondent, who is based in Muar, Johor, are in the business of buying and selling motor vehicles both new and used ones. On 8 July 1980, the respondent was approached by two brokers who were anxious to sell a second hand Mercedes-Benz 240 D ("the car") to the respondent. The car was registered in the name of one Tay Boon Kok ("Tay") and it bore a registration number, MF 9857. The respondent took up the offer of purchasing the car from Tay after satisfying themselves that all the particulars given in the registration book issued by the first appellant appear to be in order. The respondent were also informed that the RIMV file pertaining to the car had already been transferred to the second appellant.

The purchase price of the car was agreed at RM25,000 and after Tay had signed the necessary transfer forms, the respondent took possession of the car, paid Tay RM4,000 by way of a deposit with the promise to pay the balance of RM21,000 once the car was registered by the second appellant in the respondent's name.

That same day, the respondent's clerk took all the documents signed by Tay including the registration book to the second appellant with a view to having the car transferred and registered into the respondent's name. The particulars in the documents produced by the respondent were verified with the relevant file traced and produced by the second appellant and after making a payment of RM20, the second appellant endorsed the registration book with the respondent's name as the new owner of the car.

As the car was purchased for the sole purpose of reselling it at a profit, the respondent found a ready buyer, two weeks later in the person of one Su Yong Hing ("Su") who purchased it at RM29,500 on 23 July 1980. The car was duly registered in Su's name with the ownership claimed by Public Finance Bhd., as the latter had financed the purchase.

Seven months later, sometime in February 1981, the police informed the respondent that the car was a stolen car as it was reported missing in Petaling Jaya on 26 June 1980. As the police demanded its surrender, the respondent, with the assistance of Su did so. Police investigations revealed the following facts.

1. The registration number of the car, MF 9857, is false as the car was originally allott

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top