Aima Development Sdn Bhd Global Pandora Sdn Bhd Hashim bin Abd Aziz Hasmah binti Yaa'cob

Aima Development Sdn Bhd Global Pandora Sdn Bhd Hashim bin Abd Aziz Hasmah binti Yaa'cob

2nd and 3rd defendants (landowners) were not liable absent evidence of participation or control; temporary access road was built with Plaintiff's knowledge/acquiescence and caused no proven loss; 1st defendant unlawfully cut and removed soil and must compensate value of benefit unjustly obtained assessed at RM10.00/m3 for 25,287 m3 (RM252,287) plus RM50,000 general damages for embankment trespass; ponding not shown to be caused by defendant and remedial costs not proven.

Citation
BA-22E-1-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Aima Development Sdn Bhd; 1st Respondent: Global Pandora Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent: Hashim bin Abd Aziz; 3rd Respondent: Hasmah binti Yaacob
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Case Number
BA-22E-1-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (trespass, Nuisance, Negligence, Rylands) / High Court Judgment at Trial (first Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims allowed in part against 1st Defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Negligence, Nuisance, Rylands V Fletcher, Damages Assessment, Vicarious Liability, Quantification of Loss
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Property / Land Law Evidence Civil Procedure Trespass Negligence Nuisance Rylands V Fletcher +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aima Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Global Pandora Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent

Hashim bin Abd Aziz

2nd Respondent

Hasmah binti Yaacob

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (trespass, Nuisance, Negligence, Rylands) / High Court Judgment at Trial (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 2nd and 3rd defendants (landowners) are liable for torts committed by contractor (1st defendant)
  2. 2 Whether temporary access road constituted actionable trespass and caused loss
  3. 3 Whether 1st defendant unlawfully cut and removed soil and appropriate measure of damages

Ratio Decidendi

2nd and 3rd defendants (landowners) were not liable absent evidence of participation or control; temporary access road was built with Plaintiff's knowledge/acquiescence and caused no proven loss; 1st defendant unlawfully cut and removed soil and must compensate value of benefit unjustly obtained assessed at RM10.00/m3 for 25,287 m3 (RM252,287) plus RM50,000 general damages for embankment trespass; ponding not shown to be caused by defendant and remedial costs not proven.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims allowed in part against 1st Defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed

Orders

  • Award to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant: special damages RM252,287.00 for loss of soil
  • Award to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant: general damages RM50,000.00 for embankment trespass