TAN SAW KHENG 1. CHEN BOON KWEE 2. MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH 3. SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD 4. MASRI BIN TAMIN

TAN SAW KHENG 1. CHEN BOON KWEE 2. MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH 3. SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD 4. MASRI BIN TAMIN

Because the driver was permitted to use the vehicle to perform a task integral to the owner’s business and was subject to directives as part of his job (satisfying control/integration/economic reality tests), the relationship amounted to a contract of service and the owner is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence; appeal dismissed.

Citation
JB-12BNCVC-20-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Tan Saw Kheng; Respondent/plaintiff: Chen Boon Kwee; Respondent/defendant: Mohamad Ng bin Abdullah; Respondent/defendant: Sin Hock Soon Transport Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Masri bin Tamin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Case Number
JB-12BNCVC-20-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Contract of Service Vs Contract for Service, Agency, Negligence, Tests for Employment Status (control, Integration, Economic Reality)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Vicarious Liability Employment Law Motor Vehicle Accidents Contract of Service Vs Contract for Service Agency Negligence Tests for Employment Status (control, Integration, Economic Reality)

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Saw Kheng

Appellant/defendant

Chen Boon Kwee

Respondent/plaintiff

Mohamad Ng bin Abdullah

Respondent/defendant

Sin Hock Soon Transport Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Masri bin Tamin

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 4th Defendant (owner) is vicariously liable for the negligence of the 3rd Defendant (driver)
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between owner and driver is a contract of service (employee) or a contract for service (independent contractor)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the driver was permitted to use the vehicle to perform a task integral to the owner’s business and was subject to directives as part of his job (satisfying control/integration/economic reality tests), the relationship amounted to a contract of service and the owner is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs