LEARNING OUTCOMES
 Ability to identify the stages of the development of
the law on duty of care
 Ability to describe the different tests to determine
a duty of care
 Ability to assess the different tests to determine a
duty of care
2

READING
 Ahnaf Azmi, Norchaya Talib on Torts in Malaysia,
(Sweet & Maxwell Asia 2021), Chapter 6
 Wan Azlan Ahmad & Mohsin Hingun, Malaysian
Tort Law, (Sweet & Maxwell Asia 2019), Chapter 6
3

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW - UK
Neighbour
principle
2 stage test
Composite
test
4

Neighbour principle
 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562:
“…persons who are so closely and directly affected by
my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my
contemplation as being so affected…”
5

Neighbour principle (cont’)
 Objective test
 “Closely & directly”?
 Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970] AC
1004
6

2 Stage test
Anns v Merton London
Borough Council [1978]
AC 728
Existence of a DOC
Policy
considerations
negating DOC
7

2 Stage test (cont’)
 Applied in:
 McLouhglin v O’Brien [1982] 2 All ER 298
 Attia v British Gas PLC [1987] 3 All ER 455
 Junior Books Ld. V Veitchi Co. Ltd. [1983] 1 AC
520
8

2 Stage test (cont’)
 Criticized in:
 Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir
Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd. [1985] AC 210
 Leigh & Sillivan Ltd. V Aliakman Shipping Co.
Ltd. [1986] 2 All ER 145
 Yuen Kun-Yeu v AG of Hong Kong [1987] 2 All ER
705
 Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd. [1988] 1 All ER
163
9

Composite test
 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER
568, L. Bridge:
 No need to prove the situation falls squarely into
any of the recognized categories.
 Establish that DOC arises because it falls within
existing policy and decisions in analogous cases.
10

Composite test (cont’)
 Application:
 Marc Rich & Co. AG v British Rock Marine
Co. Ltd. [1995] 3 All ER 307
11

Current position
Damage: reasonably foreseeable
Close & direct relationship of
proximity
Fair, just & reasonable to impose a
DOC.
12

Malaysian position
 Development of the law:
 Sathu v Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co. Ltd.
[1961] 1 MLJ 318
 Lok Kwan Moi & Ors v Ramli bin Jamal &
Ors & Government of Malaysia [1984] 1 MLJ
46
 Sivakumaran a/l Selvaraj & 2 Ors (Suing
through their mother and next friend, Selvi
a/p Muthusamy) & Anor v Yu Pan & Anor
[1995] 1 AMR 490
13

Malaysian position (cont’)
 Foreseeability of damage?
 Zazlin Zahira lwn Louis Marie & 2 lagi [1994] 4
CLJ 637
 Champion Motor 91975) Sdn. Bhd. v Tina
Travel & Agencies Sdn. Bhd. [1997] 1 AMR 809
 Dr. Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid & Anor v
Jurusan Malsyaia Consultants (Sued as a
Firm) & Ors [1997] 1 AMR 637
14

Malaysian position (cont’)
 Uniphone Sdn. Bhd. v Chin Boon Lit & Anor
[1998] 6 MLJ 441
 Arab-Malysian Finance Bhd. v Steven Phoa
Cheng Loon [2003] 2 AMR 6
 Majlis Perbandanran Ampang Jaya v Steven
Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2006] 2 AMR 563;
[2006] 2 MLJ 389
15

Malaysian position (cont’)
Current
position
Foreseeability
of damage
Proximity of
the
relationship
fair, just and
reasonable to
impose a DOC
16

 Generally the Plaintiff is the one who suffers loss
 Issue: foreseeability of that loss
 Foreseeability = proximity?
PLAINTIFF?
17

 Kris Angsana Sdn. Bhd. v Eu Sim Chuan [2007] 5 MLJ
13
 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
 Haley v London Electricity Board [1964] 3 All ER 185
 Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1996]
1 WLR 1397
 Chong Kok Weng & Anor v Wing Wah Travel Agency
Sdn. Bhd. [2003] 5 CLJ 409
Who can be the plaintiff? (cont’)
18

 Zazlin Zahira Kamarulzaman (Budak) Menuntut
Melalui Bapa Dan Penjaganya Hj Kamarulzaman bin
Mohd Ali lwn Louis Marie Neube Rt Ambrose a/l J
Ambrose & 2 lagi [1994] 4 CLJ 637
 Pendaftar dan Pemeriksa Kereta-kereta Motor,
Melaka v KS South Motor Sdn. Bhd. [2000] 2 AMR 1838
 Sri Inai (Pulau Pinang) Sdn. Bhd. v Yong Yit Swee
[2003] 1 AMR 20
Who can be the plaintiff? (cont’)
19

RECENT DEVELOPMENT
 Thene Arulmani Chelvi a/p Arumugam v London
Weight Management Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 AMR 216, CA.
 Tokio Marine Insurans (M) Bhd v WCT Construction
Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] 11 MLJ 83, HC
20