Thank you Jiaen
First, let me discuss issue 2 which is the breach of standard of care. This issue is
also relevant to this question Did Mr. Wu breach the standard of care? I’ll begin with
how to prove the defendant who is Mr. Wu breached the standard of care. I’ll first
cover the “Reasonable man test” which can prove the people who bear the breach of
duty of care in this case. And What is a reasonable man test? The reasonable man test
refers to an objective one and does not consider the defendant’s state of mind at
the time he was committing his act of negligence. To illustrate this we can take the
case of a driver running a red light and causing an accident. A reasonable person
doesn't drive through red lights, so if the driver did so, the jury would hold them
responsible for any harm caused.
Next, let’s put the perspective into the rules. According to Nettleship v Weston,
establishing the tort of negligence involves that the defendant owed the claimant a
duty of care, which they breached in a manner that caused the claimant recoverable
harm. To establish a breach of duty owed, the claimant must establish that the
defendant failed to act as a reasonable person in their position.
And the tort also refers to Distinguishing civil from criminal wrong
I’d just like to mention that if a duty of care is deemed to be owed, then it must be
established that a breach of duty has occurred. A breach will be demonstrated if the
defendant’s actions are deemed to fall below the standard of care which is regarded as
appropriate to the duty owed. The test is an objective one, based upon the standard of
the ‘reasonable man’ in the same situation; “the omission to do something which a
reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do”.
Turning our attention now to the analysis for issue 2.
In this case, a reasonable personal accountant would not hide or omit any information
to Mrs. Nguyen. It is common that a reasonable accountant will deliver completed
information to his client in the process of providing advice. However, Mr. Wu did not
behave like a reasonable accountant, a reasonable accountant should be honest to his
client and could have checked further and would not have relied on the clerk’s
information to advise Mrs. Nguyen to purchase or invest in a property at Jelatek.
To conclude issue 2, Based on the facts, Mr Wu did not inform Mrs Nguyen about the
unconfirmed stage of the development plan at the suburb of Jelatek information from
the clerk of the City of Kuala Lumpur.
Mr. Wu's failure to do so has resulted in breaching the duty of care owed to
Mrs.Nguyen.
Therefore, Mr. Wu did breach the standard of care
Now we come to the next point which is Issue 3 about Causation
And let’s turn to the question did the breach of duty of care cause damage to Mrs.Nguyen?
Let’s look at what is causation. Causation refers to the relationship of cause and effect
between one event or action and the result. In tort law, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant caused the alleged ( a lat )tort.
The alleged tort refers to a wrongful act other than a breach of contract that injures another
for which the law imposes civil liability.
Now, let's now move on to the rules, according to Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
Management Committee, to determine whether the breach of duty of care caused damage a
“but for” test will be carried out.
On the next slide, I will pass it to Kotone to discuss the but for test . Thank you
