LIM TECK KONG V. DR ABDUL HAMID ABDUL RASHID & ANOR

LIM TECK KONG V. DR ABDUL HAMID ABDUL RASHID & ANOR

The Court affirmed the High Court: the 1st/4th defendant (the engineer/firm) breached an implied contractual term and duty in negligence by failing to carry out adequate soil testing and proper site investigation, causation of collapse was established on the evidence (preference to KTA/Dr Ramli), the loss was not treated as irrecoverable pure economic loss, and liability was apportioned 60% to the 1st/4th defendants and 40% to the 3rd defendant.

Citation
LIM TECK KONG V. DR ABDUL HAMID ABDUL RASHID & ANOR
Parties
Appellant (4th Defendant): Lim Teck Kong; Respondent (plaintiff in Lower Court): Dr Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid; 1st Defendant (firm): Jurusan Malaysia Consultants; 2nd Defendant (local Authority): Majlis Daerah Gombak; 3rd Defendant: Mighty Corporation Sdn Bhd; 5th Defendant: Leow Kim Sang
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing and Judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Pure Economic Loss, Breach of Statutory Duty, Causation, Apportionment of Liability, Rylands and Fletcher
Source Language
en
Contract Tort Negligence Statutory Duty Property Law Administrative Law Professional Negligence Pure Economic Loss +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lim Teck Kong

Appellant (4th Defendant)

Dr Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid

Respondent (plaintiff in Lower Court)

Jurusan Malaysia Consultants

1st Defendant (firm)

Majlis Daerah Gombak

2nd Defendant (local Authority)

Mighty Corporation Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant

Leow Kim Sang

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (hearing and Judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the engineer breached an implied contractual term to exercise reasonable care and skill
  2. 2 Whether the engineer was negligent in tort and causation of the collapse
  3. 3 Whether damages claimed constituted pure economic loss recoverable in tort

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court: the 1st/4th defendant (the engineer/firm) breached an implied contractual term and duty in negligence by failing to carry out adequate soil testing and proper site investigation, causation of collapse was established on the evidence (preference to KTA/Dr Ramli), the loss was not treated as irrecoverable pure economic loss, and liability was apportioned 60% to the 1st/4th defendants and 40% to the 3rd defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • 1st defendant and/or 4th defendant to pay plaintiffs RM218,503.80 (60% liability)