MUTHIAH A/L RAMASAMY MUGUNTHAN A/L VADIVELOO

MUTHIAH A/L RAMASAMY MUGUNTHAN A/L VADIVELOO

Defendant breached duty of care by failing to plead the impugned words in the original Tamil and failing to call/secure an interpreter, which caused the plaintiff to lose a valuable chance in the defamation action; plaintiff proved loss of chance but failed to prove the monetary value of that lost chance, entitling plaintiff only to nominal damages; claim for return of full fees refused as defendant did substantial work; failure to appeal did not break causation.

Citation
WA-23NCvC-42-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Muthiah A/L Ramasamy; Defendant: Muguthan A/L Vadiveloo
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Case Number
WA-23NCvC-42-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence (solicitor) Arising From Defamation Proceedings / Judgment (high Court, Grounds of Judgment Dated 19 May 2022)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on negligence claim in part; nominal damages awarded; declaration of negligence made; Plaintiff's claim for return of fees dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss of Chance, Standard of Care, Pleading Foreign Language, Interpreter Evidence, Causation, Damages, Nominal Damages, Interest, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Professional Negligence Defamation Civil Procedure Tort Contract Loss of Chance Standard of Care Pleading Foreign Language +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muthiah A/L Ramasamy

Plaintiff

Muguthan A/L Vadiveloo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence (solicitor) Arising From Defamation Proceedings / Judgment (high Court, Grounds of Judgment Dated 19 May 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant solicitor breached duty of care by failing to plead original Tamil words and failing to call an interpreter
  2. 2 Whether that breach caused compensable loss to plaintiff (loss of chance)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's underlying defamation claim was bound to fail (merit of original action)

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant breached duty of care by failing to plead the impugned words in the original Tamil and failing to call/secure an interpreter, which caused the plaintiff to lose a valuable chance in the defamation action; plaintiff proved loss of chance but failed to prove the monetary value of that lost chance, entitling plaintiff only to nominal damages; claim for return of full fees refused as defendant did substantial work; failure to appeal did not break causation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff on negligence claim in part; nominal damages awarded; declaration of negligence made; Plaintiff's claim for return of fees dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant was negligent in undertaking the civil suit on behalf of the Plaintiff
  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff nominal damages of RM 20,000.00