KRISHNASAMY KUPPUSAMY & ANOR vs PENGARAH HOSPITAL SULTANAH AMINAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 2118

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KRISHNASAMY KUPPUSAMY & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH HOSPITAL SULTANAH AMINAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:S Gunasegaran,Tan Po Au ,Respondent Advocate: Zahilah Mohammad Yusoff

Table of Content
1. estoppel by statements affecting limitation period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. filing and striking out of suits due to limitation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. admissibility of affidavit evidence in appeals. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. conditions for admitting further evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. interpretation of further evidence rules. (Para 22 , 24)
6. estoppel doctrine applicability in limitation cases. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. equitable estoppel against public officers. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. public officer responsibility in statements. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
9. existence of triable issues in limitation cases. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
10. court's discretion in amending pleadings. (Para 37 , 38)
11. final order of appeal. (Para 41)

Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] The above three appeals (3 Appeals) raise a novel question of whether the Federal Government (4th Defendant) may be estopped by statements made by, among others, Johore State Health Director (2nd Defendant) from relying on the three-year limitation period (Three-Year Limitation Period) provided in s 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (PAPA).

B. Background

[2] We shall refer to pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 2118

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAKRISHNASAMY KUPPUSAMY & ANOR – AppellantVersusPENGARAH HOSPITAL SULTANAH AMINAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KRISHNASAMY KUPPUSAMY & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH HOSPITAL SULTANAH AMINAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent