SUPRAMANIAM KASIA PILLAI vs SUBRAMANIAM MANICKAM

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 2841

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SUPRAMANIAM KASIA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
SUBRAMANIAM MANICKAM – Respondent

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and background. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
2. court's observations and findings on negligence. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14)
3. consideration of the burden of proof in appeal. (Para 12 , 15 , 17 , 18)
4. final ruling and adjustments to damages awarded. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

David Wong Dak Wah JCA:

Introduction:

[1] This is an appeal relating to a professional negligence suit against a legal practitioner in his handling of a litigation matter in COURT.

[2] The trial Judge sustained the claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff and awarded the sum of RM200,000.00 as general damages with interest at 5% from the date of Judgment and costs of RM80,000.00.

[3] We heard the appeal and after due consideration to respective submissions of counsel, we allowed the appeal in part of the Appellant/Defendant and now give our reasons.

Background Facts:

[4] The Respondent had a contract with Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd (Shell Malaysia) in which he undertook to transport and deliver petrol to Shell Petrol Stations in Kedah and Perlis.

[5] Two drivers of a tanker lorry registration number NAH 6706 on 6 July 1995 were caught for theft of petrol while transporting petrol to Perlis. An

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 2841

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASUPRAMANIAM KASIA PILLAI – AppellantVersusSUBRAMANIAM MANICKAM – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SUPRAMANIAM KASIA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
SUBRAMANIAM MANICKAM – Respondent