CHENDELADEVAN A/L KUPPUSAMY Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang

CHENDELADEVAN A/L KUPPUSAMY Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant owed and breached a duty of care: officers acted under statutory by‑laws when seizing an uncollared dog in a council area, the dog appeared to be stray and owner was absent, veterinary evidence showed dart dosage within safe margin and the dog was aged with evidence supporting natural death, there was no reliable evidence of cruel handling, res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and vicarious liability could not be established because the officer allegedly at fault was not made a party. Accordingly the claim is dismissed with costs and the Defendant's counterclaim for a declaration that the licence issued on 28.02.2018...

Citation
PA-A51NCvC-27-07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif: CHENDELADEVAN A/L KUPPUSAMY; Defendan: MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 February 2023
Case Number
PA-A51NCvC-27-07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Guaman Sivil / Judgment (mahkamah Sesyen)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failure to prove negligence; Defendant's counterclaim for a declaration that licence No.DOG00000474 issued on 28.02.2018 at 11:47 is invalid and void allowed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Powers and By‑laws, Licensing, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Damages, Declaration
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Administrative Law Local Government Law Animal Control Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Statutory Powers and By‑laws Licensing +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHENDELADEVAN A/L KUPPUSAMY

Plaintif

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Guaman Sivil / Judgment (mahkamah Sesyen)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipal council owed a duty of care to the dog owner
  2. 2 Whether the council breached any duty in the capture, sedation and handling of the dog
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant owed and breached a duty of care: officers acted under statutory by‑laws when seizing an uncollared dog in a council area, the dog appeared to be stray and owner was absent, veterinary evidence showed dart dosage within safe margin and the dog was aged with evidence supporting natural death, there was no reliable evidence of cruel handling, res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and vicarious liability could not be established because the officer allegedly at fault was not made a party. Accordingly the claim is dismissed with costs and the Defendant's counterclaim for a declaration that the licence issued on 28.02.2018...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failure to prove negligence; Defendant's counterclaim for a declaration that licence No.DOG00000474 issued on 28.02.2018 at 11:47 is invalid and void allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs of RM3,000 payable to Defendant
  • Declaration granted that licence No.DOG00000474 issued to the Plaintiff on 28.02.2018 at 11:47 is not valid and is void