A hotel owes a duty of care to its guests and must ensure their safety by preventing unauthorized access, which constitutes negligence.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Radzi Harun JC:

Introduction

[1] The 1st and 2nd respondents ("R1" and "R2") filed a writ against the appellant and another party, Vong Chee Wai ("VCW"), for what this court would call a scuffling incident between VCW and R1 and R2 that occurred on the wee hours of 18 December 2016 at the premisess of the appellant hotel.

[2] After a full trial, the learned HMS allowed R1 and R2's claims against the appellant and VCW.

[3] The appellant appealed against the said decision and R1 and R2 also appealed on the issue of quantum awarded to them by the HMS.

[4] I had dismissed both appeals.

[5] The appellant is now aggrieved by my decision and here are the grounds of my decision.

Brief Facts

[6] At the court below, VCW pleaded that he and R1 had cohabitated and lived together as husband and wife for a period of about nine years preceding the date of the incident, 18 December 2016, having gone through the traditional Chinese marriage ceremony witnessed by their family members, despite the fact that they had not registered the said marriage.

[7] R1 denied the existence of the said traditional marriage ceremony and did not agree that she had been cohabitating with VCW and living as husband and wife until the day of the incident. On the contrary, R1 pleaded that VCW was her former boyfriend whose relationship had broken up way back in 2012, a fact which VCW had never been able to come to terms with.

[8] This court found that neither R1 nor VCW called any witness during the trial before the learned HMS to give evidence on the above matter. At the same time, this court had seized itself of the fact that the HMS vide her order on 4 October 2017 had expunged the relevant portion in the appellant's statement of defence pertaining to the husband-wife relationship between R1 and VCW, which had led to the appellant's amended statement of defence deleting the relevant paragraphs on the same issue to reflect the said order of the HMS. It is this court's finding that the proposition that R1 and VCW being husband and wife has not been proven and is irrelevant for the purposes of the appeal before this court.

[9] R1 and R2 checked in at the appellant's hotel on 17 December 2016. VCW pleaded that at around 2.30am on 18 December 2016, he went to the hotel and approached one Ms Racheal Wong ("RW"), the employee of R1 who was on duty at the reception desk, and asked for the room number where R1 was occupying. RW, on the mistaken belief which she has held all along that R1 and VCW were husband and wife, voluntarily informed VCW the number and location of the room that R1 was occupying. According to VCW, he then went to the room and called for R1. As there was no answer, VCW returned to the reception desk and asked RW to give him the access card to the said room, which RW was obliged to provide.

[10] VCW used the access card to enter the room. VCW became angry upon seeing R1 and R2 together on the same bed and called for R1 to leave the room with him. That was when a scuffle broke out amongst R1, R2 and VCW, that had caused abrasions and injuries to them.

[11] This was the incident that led to the respondents' action against the appellant and VCW.

[12] The appellant's main defence was that R1 and VCW had been its regular guests and are both known as husband and wife over the years by the general Ipoh public and the appellant's staff, aside from the fact that they are both prominent figures in Ipoh. The appellant pleaded that its employee, RW, provided VCW with the information on R1's room and granted VCW the access key to that room based on the information provided by VCW to RW at that moment.

[13] The appellant pleaded further that its employees and security guards on duty at the said premises on the date of the incident had taken all reasonable and necessary steps to contain the scuffles and fights involving the respondents and VCW. As such, the learned HMS had erred in her findings that the appellant had negligent and failed to exercise its duty of care owe