AHMAD JAAFAR ABDUL LATIFF vs DATO BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 MarsdenLR 1786

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD JAAFAR ABDUL LATIFF – Appellant
Versus
DATO BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Prem Ramachandran ,Respondent Advocate: Harikannan Ragavan,Barvina Punnusamy

Table of Content
1. duty of care regarding public safety. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 8)
2. appeal against lower court ruling. (Para 2 , 3)
3. accident details and injuries. (Para 5)
4. arguments concerning the statutory duties of the local authority. (Para 7 , 12 , 14 , 15)
5. court's analysis on the importance of tree location. (Para 9 , 10 , 19)
6. definition and extent of duty of care. (Para 16 , 27 , 62)
7. interpretation of statutory duties in negligence cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 21)
8. final judgment allowing the appeal. (Para 28)
9. negligence burden of proof. (Para 60 , 67)

[1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in allowing the respondent's appeal and consequently setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent the defendant. The defendant is a local authority entrusted to administer the city of Kuala Lumpur pursuant to the Local Government Act 1976 (the Act).

[3] On 21 March 2013, leave to appeal was granted to the plaintiff by this Court for the determination on a sole question of law which reads as follows:

"To what extent do the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 1786

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAAHMAD JAAFAR ABDUL LATIFF – AppellantVersusDATO BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD JAAFAR ABDUL LATIFF – Appellant
Versus
DATO BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR – Respondent