Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know.

So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I

happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
TORT LIST OF CASES ACCORDING TO THE TOPICS

TOPIC ISSUES CASE(S)

1. Elements of negligence
Definition of negligence Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan
When does cause of action arises Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v Tetuan Wan Marican
Hamzah & Shaik & Lain-lain
1) Duty Heaven v Pender
Neighbor principle Donoghue v Stevenson
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
Anns v Merton London Borough Council; create Anns Test
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd / Governors of the Peabody
Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd; applying
Anns test
Malaysia:
Sathu v Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co Ltd
Lok Kwan Moi v Raml b Jamil & Ors & Government of
Malaysia
Sivakumaran al Selvaraj v Yu Pan & Anor
Uniphone Sdn Bhd v Chin Boon Lit & Anor
Not every wrong act give rise to liability Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay
Parkinson & Co Ltd
i) foreseeability Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
ii) proximity Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Malaysia:
Eng Thye Plantations Bhd v Lim
Jaswant Singh v Central Electricity Board

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
Duty must be owned by the tortfeasor to Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co
particular claimant
Claimant does not have to be individually Haley v London Electricity Board
identifiable by defendant; sufficient if
claimant damage was forseeable
Necessary to consider whether there Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
ought to negative/reduce/limit the scope
of duty *public policy reasons Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

*tests to claim for Establishing Special relationship Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
Negligent Misstatement ------> a) special skills/formal transaction/
The claimant can potentially Caparo Industries v Dickman; additional test
advisee rely
claim when he succeed in i. did the advisor know the purpose of the advice at the time
b) voluntary assumption of responsibility
establishing special relationship. he gave the advice?
c)reasonable for advisee to rely on the
Means that the defendant has ii. did the advisor know that the advice will be given to
advice
duty of care towards the advisee to be used for that purpose?
claimant. iii. did the advisor know that the advisee will use the advice
fulfilled all test: have duty of care
without independent inquiry?
failed to fulfilled any of the test: no doc
iv. did the advisee act according the advice and suffer loss?
2) Breach Benchmark: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Definition Winfield: he does not resemble any living human being – he
will not fall below the standard of the law
Relevant factors to see whether the defendant has come up to the standard
State of knowledge Roe v Minister of Health
N v UK Medical Research Council
Magnitude of risk
Bolton v Stone
2 factors:
i. Chances risk occurring Paris v Stepney Borough Council
ii. seriousness of damage/injury
Utility of conduct / potential benefits of
Watt v Herdforshire County Council
conduct/risk
Made by: NK / bitternuzz
2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
Common practice Gold v Haringey Health Authority
Gray v Stead
Aikbee Sawmill v Mun Kum Chow
Morris v Hartlepool Navigation Co
Paris v Stepney BC
Cost & practicability of precautions Bolton v Stone
Novices Nettleship v Weston
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Wells v Cooper
Professional standard Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Maynard v West Midlands Health Authority
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlehem Royal
Hospital & the Maudsley Hosp
Accountants: Mutual Life Assurance v Evatt
Lawyers: Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co
Commonwealth countries Hopp v Lepp
Rogers v Whitaker
Malaysian position
Applied Bolam’s test Chin Keow v Govt of Malaysia & Anor
Elizabeth Choo v Govt of Malaysia
Hong Chuan Lay v Eddie Soo Fook Mun
Asiah bte Kamsah v Dr. Rajinder Singh & Ors
Applied Rogers v Whitaker test Kamalam a/p Raman & Ors v Eastern Plantation Agency
(Johore) Sdn Bhd Ulu Tiram Estate, Ulu Tiram, Johore & Anor
Practitioner (medical) have duty to Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor
inform patient on information of risks RvW
3) Causation & Remoteness of Damages
IN FACT
i. single cause Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management
Apply but-for test Committee; claim failed.
Made by: NK / bitternuzz
2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
Ang Chai Ha & Ors v Sri Jaya Transport Co
Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat bin Mahmud & Anor
Mohamed Raihan & Anor v Government of Malaysia & Ors;
distinguish with Jumat
ii. multiple causes McGhee v National Coal Board
not apply but-for test Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority; distinguish with
McGhee
iii. consecutive/successive causes Performance Cars v Abraham
Baker v Willoughby
iv. concurrent causes Fitzgerald v Lane
IN LAW
i) direct consequence test Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd
ii) Reasonable foresight test Re Wagon Mound
Applying Re Wagon Mound Hughes v Lord Advocate
Govt of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat Bin Mahmud & Anor
Daughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd
Jaswant Singh
iii) Relevant factors associated with reasonable foresight test
Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd; forseeable
a) type of damage must forseeable Tremain v Pike; not forseeable
Crossley v Rawlinson; unforeseeable
b) extent of damage is irrelevant Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd
GR that defendant will be liable albeit for the unforeseeable physical extent of damage
i. eggshell skull rule Smith v Leech-Brain & Co Ltd
Robinson v Post Office
ii. plaintiff impecuniosity Liesbosch Dredger v Edison SS
c) method by which the damage occurs Hughes v Lord Advocate
is irrelevant Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd
GR: once damage is forseeable, method Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd.; not applicable
damage occurs is not important Local case: Susan Cheah; unforseeable
iv) Intervening acts

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
a. natural event Carlogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government
b. third party Scott v Shepherd
The Oropesa
Rouse v Squires
Knightley v Johns; compare with Rouse
Billion Origin Sdn Bhd v Newbridge Networks Sdn Bhd; no
break in chain of causation
Lamb v Camden Borough Council; damage too remote
Ward v Cannock Chase District Council; damage forseeable
c. by plaintiff himself McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd
Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area
Health Authority; no novus actus interveniens established
2. Trespass: Intentional Torts
1) trespass to person
Assault
Winfield – an act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a
battery on him by the defendant
a. Elements
i) the mental state of the defendant R v St George
Blake v Barnard
Lord Denning’s obiter in Letang v Cooper
ii) the plaintiff must feel reasonable Stephen v Myers
apprehension Thomas v NUM
iii) capability to carry out the threat Stephen v Myers
iv) believed that it will be immediate
force
b. can words constitute assault? R v Meade & Belt; “no words or singing are equivalent to an
assault”
R v Wilson; “Get out your knives”, constitute assault
R v Ireland; words instill reasonable fear or unlawful and

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
immediate physical violence does amount to assault
Battery
Winfield – the intentional and direct application of force to another person
a. Elements
i) the mental state of the defendant Wilson v Pringle
Contrast with Scott v Shepherd
Gibbons v Pepper
ii) contact Innes v Wylie
iii) without the plaintiff’s consent Collins v Wilcock
False imprisonment
Winfield – infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by the law
a. Elements
i) the mental state of the defendant W Elphinstone v Lee Leng San
ii) the restraint must be a direct Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council; negligence act of
consequence of the defendant’s act defendant is not a false imprisonment
Aitkeen v Bedwell
iii) the restraint must complete Grainger v Hill
Bird v Jones
iv) must be a wrongful detention Malek bin Husin v Borhan b Hj Daud
Awareness of plaintiff that he was being Meering v Grahame White Aviation Co Ltd
restrained or confined Murray v Ministry of Defence
2) trespass to land
Winfield – unjustifiable interference with the possession of land
a. Elements
i) mental state of defendant Basely v Clarkson
League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott
ii) claimant must have exclusive Kerajaan Negeri Selangor v Sagong Bin Tasi
possession of land
iii) interference Gregory v Piper
b. how can be committed
Made by: NK / bitternuzz
2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
i) wrongful entry
ii) continuing trespass Nadchatiram Realities (1960) Ltd v Raman & Ors
Holmes v Wilson
Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh
iii) placing objects on land Holmes v Wilson
iv) trespass ab initio Defined in The Six Carpenters
Cinnamon v British Airports Authority
Elias v Pasmore
v) above and beneath the surface
a. airspace Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co
Wandsworth Board of Works v United Telephone Co
Leigh v Skyviews &General Ltd; restricting the rights of an
owner in the air space above his land to such height
necessary
Karuppannan v Balakrishnen
b. subsoil
3) trespass to goods
3.1 interference with goods
Winfield – wrongful physical interference with possession of goods
a. Elements
i) mental state of defendant Wilson v Lombank
National Coal Board v Evans
ii) interference Kirk v Gregory
must be a direct act Haji Awalludin bin Anidin v Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan
iii) Goods
iv) Claimant Penfolds Wines v Elliot
3.2 Conversion
Winfield – wrongful dealing of another’s goods which deprives him of the use/possession of them
a. Elements
i) mental state of defendant RH Willis and Sons v British Car Auctions
Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd
Made by: NK / bitternuzz
2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
Ashby v Tolhurst
Hollins v Fowler
Che Din Mohamed Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor and Chew
Chan Seng
ii) interference or dealing with good Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Ltd
inconsistent with owner’s rights Foong Chee Chong v Inspector Mohd Nasir bin Shamsuddin
& Anor

iii) goods Oriental Bank of Malaya v Rubber Industry (Replanting)

Board
Electro Card Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Mejati RCS Sdn Bhd &
Ors
b. claimant Che Din Mohd Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor & Chew Chan Seng;
person who has actual possession or the includes a mortgagee who has a right to immediate
right to immediate possession possession
Finder: Parker v British Airways Board
3.3 Detinue
Winfield – wrongful detention of goods belonging to another; owner voluntarily put goods in another’s
possession and the other refused to re-deliver
a. Elements
i) Defendant’s mental state
ii) demand & refusal for return of goods PKNS v Teo Kai Huat
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford)
Ltd
b. claimant Sajan Singh v Sardara Ali
Lim Kim Hock v Lee Ah Koong
3. Remedies
Damages

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
1) Compensate = money
In principle of restitution in integrum
To be put injured party in the same Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co
position as he would have been – original
position
2) must be recovered once and for all Exception:
P cannot bring second action upon same 2 distinct rights are violated and where the injury is
cause of action bc his injury proves to be continuing one
more serious than was thought when
judgment given e.g. may be recover physical injury and earning capacities.
Types
1) general & special General: Ong Ah Long v Dr. S Underwood
Special: Ryland v Fletchers
2) contemptuous
3) Nominal Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook Kum
Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh Brar
4) exemplary/punitive Rookes v Barnard
Khaw Ceng Poon & Ors v Khaw Cheng Book & Ors
5) Aggravated Roshairee Abdul Wahab v Mejar Mustafa Omar & Ors
Injunction
Order by the court which has the effect of either prohibiting the D from repeating/ continuing his act
1) prohibitory
2) mandatory
Time of injunction
before Quia Timet Injunction
At the end of the trial Perpetual injunction
After/during commission of the act Interlocutory Injunction
alleged to be a tort
Ors remedies Specific restitution of property
Self-help
4. Defences
Made by: NK / bitternuzz
2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.
General
Volenti non Fit Injuria Lee Geok Theng v Ngee Tai Hoo & Anor
Contributory accident Lai Yiew Siong
Inevitable accident Fardon v Harcourt – Rivington
Specific
1) Private defence
Self-defence Anonymous Case 68 ER 1075
Defence of property Creswell v Sirl
2) Necessity
Private defence Corpe v Sharpe
Public defence Dewey v White
3) Mistake Consolidated Co v Curtis
4) Consent Freeman v Home Office

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]
Disclaimer: hi it’s me again! This time around, I managed to insert the only cases that I know. So the blank spaces is/are the issue(s) which I
happen to not know what the case(s) is/are. So sorry for the loopholes :> DO NOT MAKE ANY SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTION OVER THIS
NOTES AS CONSENT WILL NOT BE GRANTED. PLS MAKE IT FREE ACCESS.

Note: Again, sorry bc handwriting is hard to understand. Please read closely haha!

Made by: NK / bitternuzz

2016/12
Tq to nas
Contact: [email protected]