1. ) MOHD HAKEEM BIN HANIFF 2. ) NURUL SHAFINAZ BINTI ABDUL RASHID 1. ) DATUK BANDAR, DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) SISTEM PENYURAIAN TRAFIK KL BARAT HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) Time Dotcom Berhad

1. ) MOHD HAKEEM BIN HANIFF 2. ) NURUL SHAFINAZ BINTI ABDUL RASHID 1. ) DATUK BANDAR, DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) SISTEM PENYURAIAN TRAFIK KL BARAT HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) Time Dotcom Berhad

The High Court held that the inaccuracies in the Statement of Claim (road name variation and description as 'large hole' rather than 'manhole') were not fatal because the evidence, admissions and documents produced at trial showed the accident, its general location and cause such that respondents were not taken by surprise; applying the variation versus radical departure test from Ang Koon Kau the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the suit and should have decided on the merits. Accordingly the plaintiffs' appeal against DBKL is allowed, DBKL's cross-appeal on quantum is dismissed, DBKL's indemnity claim against Sprint is allowed on appeal, and Sprint's indemnity claim against Time Dotcom...

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mohd Hakeem Bin Haniff; Appellant/plaintiff: Nurul Shafinaz Binti Abdul Rashid; Respondent/appellant/defendant: Datuk Bandar Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur; Respondent/third Party: Sistem Penyuraian Trafik KL Barat Holdings Sdn Bhd (Sprint); Respondent/third Party: Time Dotcom Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 March 2024
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-56-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/negligence and Third Party Indemnity) / High Court Judgment on Appeals and Cross Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Mixed: plaintiffs' appeal (Appeal 56) allowed; DBKL cross-appeal on quantum dismissed; DBKL appeal (Appeal 60) against Sprint allowed in part (indemnity orders granted); Sprint appeal (Appeal 63) against Time Dotcom allowed in part (indemnity orders granted); Sessions Court orders set aside where specified; quantum...
Legal Topics
Negligence, Pleadings and Particulars, No Case to Answer, Third Party Indemnity, Appellate Review of Quantum, Statutory Immunity (government Proceedings Act S7)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Civil Procedure Administrative Law Public Authority Liability Negligence Pleadings and Particulars No Case to Answer Third Party Indemnity +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Hakeem Bin Haniff

Appellant/plaintiff

Nurul Shafinaz Binti Abdul Rashid

Appellant/plaintiff

Datuk Bandar Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur

Respondent/appellant/defendant

Sistem Penyuraian Trafik KL Barat Holdings Sdn Bhd (Sprint)

Respondent/third Party

Time Dotcom Berhad

Respondent/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/negligence and Third Party Indemnity) / High Court Judgment on Appeals and Cross Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether factual errors in particulars of a Statement of Claim are fatal to the claim under the principle parties are bound by their pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the inaccuracies alleged constituted a radical departure from pleaded case or only a variation/modification
  3. 3 Whether DBKL retained liability for road maintenance despite delegation to third parties and whether Section 7 Government Proceedings Act 1956 afforded immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the inaccuracies in the Statement of Claim (road name variation and description as 'large hole' rather than 'manhole') were not fatal because the evidence, admissions and documents produced at trial showed the accident, its general location and cause such that respondents were not taken by surprise; applying the variation versus radical departure test from Ang Koon Kau the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the suit and should have decided on the merits. Accordingly the plaintiffs' appeal against DBKL is allowed, DBKL's cross-appeal on quantum is dismissed, DBKL's indemnity claim against Sprint is allowed on appeal, and Sprint's indemnity claim against Time Dotcom...

Court Disposition

Mixed: plaintiffs' appeal (Appeal 56) allowed; DBKL cross-appeal on quantum dismissed; DBKL appeal (Appeal 60) against Sprint allowed in part (indemnity orders granted); Sprint appeal (Appeal 63) against Time Dotcom allowed in part (indemnity orders granted); Sessions Court orders set aside where specified; quantum...

Orders

  • Appeal 56: Sessions Court dismissal of plaintiffs' suit set aside; plaintiffs' appeal allowed; Sessions Court order that plaintiffs pay scale costs of RM 13,680.45 to DBKL is set aside
  • DBKL shall pay costs of RM 20,000 to the plaintiffs subject to allocatur