Page 1
Page 2
[1997] 3 MLJ 546
DR ABDUL HAMID ABDUL RASHID & ANOR v JURUSAN MALAYSIA CONSULTANTS (SUED AS A FIRM) & ORS HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM) JAMES FOONG J CIVIL SUIT NO 22-9 OF 1990 15 Nv!"#!$ 199% Contract -- Breach -- Implied term -- Implied term to exercise reasonable care and skill -- Whether such term should be implied -- Whether failure of engineer to determine soil condition to a high degree of certainty was a breach of implied term of its appointment to take reasonable care Tort -- Negligence -- Pure economic loss -- Whether a claim for pure economic loss can be entertained in an action for negligence The plaintiffs, who were hs!an" an" wife, were owners of a pie#e of propert$ %&Lot 3''7&() The plaintiffs hire" the first "efen"ant, an engineering fir*, to #onstr#t a "o!le store$ hose %&the hose&( on Lot 3''7) Plans of the hose were signe" !$ the forth "efen"ant, the proprietor of the first "efen"ant, who was a registere" engineer at the *aterial ti*e) The !il"ing plans were appro+e" !$ the se#on" "efen"ant, the town #on#il, with its sal spe#ifi#ations an" #on"itions) ##or"ingl$, the hose was #o*plete" an" han"e" o+er to the plaintiff !t no #ertifi#ate of fitness was isse" thogh an in+estigation was "one !$ the se#on" "efen"ant) !ot three an" a half $ears later, the hose !egan to #ollapse "e to lan"sli"e an" the plaintiffs were for#e" to e+a#ate the pre*ises) -ant* of "a*ages sffere" !$ the p laintiffs was not in "ispte) The #ort was to "e#i"e on the lia!ilit$ of ea#h "efen"ant) The plaintiffs #lai*e" against the first, forth an" fifth "efen"ants for !rea#h of their #ontra#t with the plaintiffs, an" plea"e" that the forth an" fifth "efen"ants were in fa#t #o.proprietors of the first "efen"ant) The fifth "efen"ant "enie" !eing a #o.proprietor an" ga +e e+i"en#e that he was onl$ the #hief #ler/ an" "rafts*an of the first "efen"ant) The first plaintiff #lai*e" that the fifth "efen"ant ga+e hi* the i*pression that the latter was an engineer of the first "efen"ant) The plaintiffs& #lai*s against the first, forth an" fifth "efen"ants were fon"e" on #ontra#t an" tort) The plaintiff *aintaine" that0 %i( the "efen"ants ha" faile" to eer#ise reasona!le #are an" s/ill in #arr$ing ot all aspe#ts of the engage*ent ha+ing regar" in parti#lar to the pri*ar$ o!e#ti+e of the plaintiffs an" %ii( the "efen"ants ha" faile" to properl$ an" a"eatel$ i*ple*ent an" ea*ine Lot 3''7, its soil #on"ition an" srron"ings to as#ertain the sita!ilit$ of the slope for the propose" hose) rther, the plaintiffs allege" that the "efen"ants ha" !rea#he" a "t$ of #are in failing to ta/e into serios #onsi"eration the sta!ilit$ of the slope on whi#h the hose was !ilt) onsel for the "efen"ants howe+er o!e#te" to the #lai* an" arge" that the #lai* was for pre e#ono*i# loss, the #ollapse" hose !e ing the "efe#ti+e pro"#t) !!" # $%& '() at '(" The plaintiffs& #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant was !ase" on negligen#e an" !rea#h of stattor$ "ties n"er the Lo#al o+ern*ent #t 1976, 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 an" the ;nifor* :il"ing :$. laws 19<4) =t was arge" that0 %i( the plaintiffs& plea"ings "i" not sffi#ientl$ "is#lose *aterial fa#ts to spport their #lai* for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ %ii( the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.laws 19<4 was not in for#e at the ti*e it was sai" to ha+e !een !rea#he" an" %iii( the 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 pre+ente" the #ase of a#tion against the se#on" "efen"ant to s##ee" e+en in the e+ent of a !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ !$ the se#on" "efen"ant) The #ase of a#tion against the thir" "efen"ant was !ase" on nisan#e, negligen#e an" the rle of *ylands + ,letcher ) The thir" "efen"ant was the #ontra#tor engage" in ere#ting a "o!le store$ !ngalow on a neigh!oring lan" %&Lot 3''<&() The thir" "efen"ant was sai" to ha+e nne#essaril$ allowe" infiltration or seepage of water into the gron" an">or allowing it to o+erflow onto Lot 3''7 #asing satration in the soil reslting in lan"sli"e whi#h !roght "own the h ose)
Page 3
H!', allowing the #lai* against the first, thir" an" forth "efen"ants, an" "is*issing the #lai* against the se#on" an" fifth "efen"ants0
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
N!
There was insffi#ient e+i"en#e to spport the plaintiffs& #lai* that the fifth "efen"ant was a #o. proprietor of the fir*) The fa#t that the fifth "efen"ant *isrepresente" hi*self as an engineer #ol" onl$ at *ost !e +i#ariosl$ attri!te" to the fir*) Therefore, the #lai* against the fifth "efen"ant was "is*isse" %see p 554..() s the plaintiffs& #ontentions against the fir* were not within an$ epress an" spe#ifi# #on"ition in the written #ontra#t, the onl$ !asis the plaintiffs #ol" rel$ on to s##ee" was !ase" on the legal #on#ept of there !eing i*plie" ter*s) ro* the fa#ts, it was #lear that the ter* that the first "efen"ant *st reasona!l$ an" eita!l$ !e epe#te" to ta/e reasona!le #are an" s/ill in the perfor*an#e of the #ontra#t alifie" to !e a##epte" as an i*plie" ter* of the #ontra#t !etween the plaintiffs an" the first an">or forth "efen"ants)The failre of the first an">or forth "efen"ants to "eter*ine the soil #on"ition to a high "egree of #ertaint$ was a !rea#h of the i*plie" ter* of its appoint*ent to ta/e reasona!le #are) ?ther failres on the pa rt of the first an">or forth "efen"ants were #lear !rea#hes of professional "ties) The first an">or forth "efen"ants were therefore lia!le for !rea#h of #ontra#t %see pp 555.., 557=, 55<..= an" 559( :P @efiner$ %Aesternport( Pt$ Lt" + 8hire of Basting %197<( 52 LJ@ 2' followe") #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss #an !e entertaine" in an a#tion for negligen#e) Con.allowan#e of s#h #lai* wol" lea+e the entire grop of s!seent pr#hasers in this #ontr$ withot relief against errant !il"ers, ar#hite#ts, engineers an" relate" !!" # $%& '() at '( personnel who are fon" to ha+e erre") =f there is an$ fear that this approa#h *a$ en#*!er the lo#al athorities to pa$ ot s!stantial #lai*s "e to their negligen#e in granting appro+als or inspe#ting !il"ing wor/s, there is s 95 of the 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 whi#h prohi!its s#h athorities to !e se")?n the fa#ts, !ase" on si*ilar gron"s as fon" !$ the #ort n"er the #ase of a#tion for !rea#h of #ontra#t, it was #lear that the first an">or forth "efen"ants were lia!le to the plaintiffs for negligen#e %see p 565..( .utton + Bognor *egis /.C [1972] 1 -: 373, 0nns + $erton %ondon BC [197<] 72<, &unior Books %td + 1eitchi Co %td [19<3] 1 52', In+ercargill City Council + 2amlin [1996] 1 ll D@ 756, Winnipeg Condominium Corp No #) + Bird Construction Co %td 3 4rs %1995( 121 L@ %4th D"( 193, Bryan + $aloney %1995( 12< L@ 163, *5P 0rchitects Planners 3 6ngineers + 4cean ,ront Pte %td 3 another appeal [1996] 1 8L@ 113 followe" 7era8aan $alaysia + Cheah ,oong Chiew 3 0nor [1993] 2 MLJ 439 an" Teh 7hem 4n 3 0nor + 9eoh 3 Wu .e+elopment 5dn Bhd 3 4rs [1995] 2 MLJ 663 not followe" $urphy + Brentwood .istrict Council [199'] 2 ll D@ 9'< an" . 3 , 6states %td 3 4rs + Church Commissioners for 6ngland 3 4rs [19<9] 177 "istingishe" Bolam + ,riern 2ospital $anagement Committee [1957] 2 ll D@ 11< followe") =n their #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant, the plaintiffs& plea"ings ha" faile" to sffi#ientl$ "is#lose *aterial fa#ts for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ an" negligen#e) lso, the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.laws 19<4 in whi#h +arios pro+isions were sai" to ha+e !een !rea#he" !$ the se#on" "efen"ant ha" $et to #o*e into for#e at the "ate the !rea#h was sai" to ha+e !een #o**itte") Moreo+er, s 95 of the 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 ee*pte" the se#on" "efen"ant fro* !eing se" for s#h prposes) Ths, the #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant *st fail %see pp 567:..= an" 56<..() The thir" "efen"ant ha" artifi#iall$ a##*late" the rainwater with the e#a+ation whi#h was an alteration to the natre of the lan" an" ha" also interfere" with the rainwater !$ #onstr#ting trans+erse "rains en"ing three arters "own the slope of Lot 3''<) ll these ha" affe#te" the natral flow of the water reslting in its #on#entrate" an" in#rease" infiltration into the lan" there!$ #asing "estr#ti+e effe#t to Lot 3''7) :$ s#h "ee"s, the thir" "efen"ant ha" !rea#he" its "t$ of #are towar"s the plaintiffs in respe#t of negligen#e, #ase" nisan#e to the plaintiffs, as well as !eing lia!le in part n"er the rle of *ylands + ,letcher %see p 572.D()
Page 4
or a #ase on !rea#h of i*plie" ter*s, see 3 $allal:s .igest %4th D", 1997 @eisse( para 1651) or #ases on negligen#e, see 12 $allal:s .igest %4th D", 1996 @eisse( paras 315.<52)
C*! $!+!$$!' 0nns + $erton %ondon BC [197<] 72< %ref"( Bolam + ,riern 2ospital $anagement Committee [1957] 2 ll D@ 11< %foll"( !!" # $%& '() at ''; BP *efinery o+ernment of $alaysia 3 0nor [1967] 2 MLJ 45 %ref"( . 3 , 6states %td 3 4rs + Church Commissioners for 6ngland 3 4rs [19<9] 177 %"ist"( .onoghue + 5te+enson [1932] 562 %ref"( .utton + Bognor *egis /.C [1972] 1 -: 373 %foll"( >artner + 7idman [1962] L@ 62' %ref"( >rea+es 3 Co
s 1'1
8treet rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 ss 53%1(, 7', 95 ;nifor* :il"ing :$.Laws 19<4 !$.laws <%3(, 1', 17, 25%2( N Pathmanathan <. Tan with him= <5krine 3 Co= for the plaintiffs) Ngeow 9in Ngee <$ohd .aud 3 Ngeow= for the first, forth an" fifth "efen"ants) Noor 2adi bin 5allehon <5alwah bte $ohd >ha@ali with him= <2adi ul 3 7hairi= for the se#on" "efen"ant) Ng 7ay 6ng <>T 1anan with him= <arina >T 1anan 3 0ssociates= for the thir" "efen"ant) JAMES FOONG J The plaintiffs are hs!an" an" wife, an" were at all *aterial ti*es owners of a pie#e of propert$ /nown as Lot 3''7, Fe*en"ah Beights, 8elangor %&Lot 3''7&() =n nee" of professionals to "raw p plans to !il" a
Page 5
hose on Lot 3''7, the hs!an", the f irst plaintiff, wal/e" into the offi#e of the first "efen"ant) The first "efen"ant ha" "es#ri!e" itself as a fir* of &#onslting #i+il an" str#tral engineers&) =n atten"an#e at the first "efen"ant&s offi#e was the fifth "efen"ant who ga+e an i*pression to !!" # $%& '() at ''# the first plaintiff that he was the engineer of the fir*, when in fa#t he was onl$ a #hief #ler/ an" a "rafts*an) Plans of a "o!le store$ hose were then "rawn an" signe" !$ the forth "efen"ant) The forth "efen"ant was a registere" engineer with the :oar" of Dngineers of Mala$sia at the *aterial ti*e, !t no longer so after !eing str#/ off the rolls when he a"*itte" to the reglator$ !o"$ of engineers that he !rea#he" the rles !$ operating two fir*s at the sa*e ti*e, one of whi#h !eing the first "efen"ant) @ele+ant !il"ing plans were s!*itte" to the se#on" "efen"ant, the town #on#il of the area) The plans were appro+e" with the sal spe#ifi#ations an" #on"itions) :il"ing then #o**en#e" ntil it was #o*plete" an" han"e" o+er to the plaintiffs on or a!ot pril 19<5 wherepon, the plaintiffs *o+e" into resi"en#e) ;ntil 1< 8epte*!er 19<<, no #ertifi#ate of fitness was isse" !$ the se#on" "efen"ant for the o##pation of this hose, thogh there was an inspe#tion !$ an offi#er fro* the se#on" "efen"ant) ?n 1< 8epte*!er 19<< at a!ot 3a*, the plaintiffs were awa/en !$ an nsall$ lo" son") Ahen the first plaintiff loo/e" ot of his !e"roo* win"ow fa#ing a ri+er !elow the hose he was na!le to see the tops of so*e trees whi#h he ha" plante" on the slope) #on#rete "e#/ an" the !on"ar$ !ri#/ wall whi#h were ere#te" on this part of the lan" ha" tilte" an" #ollapse" respe#ti+el$) The plaintiffs an" the fa*il$ rshe" ot of the hose to ta/e refge with a neigh!or so*e short "istan#e awa$) t a!ot 5a*, the first plaintiff hear" shattering son" of glasses e#hoing fro* his hose) :$ 6a*, when sffi#ient "a$light appeare", the plaintiffs retrne" to inspe#t their hose an" fon" that +irtall$ half of the hose fa#ing the ri+er ha" #r*!le" "e to lan"sli"e) This in#i"ent was reporte" to the athorities an" at the instigation of the se#on" "efen"ant, an engineering #onsltant fir* /nown as F*arasi+an Tan G riffin 8"n :h" %&FT&( was appointe" to "eter*ine the #ase) Together with a geo.engineering epert !$ the na*e of r @a*li, a report was isse" on 3 pril 19<9) :asi#all$, this report attri!tes the #ase of the #ollapse to the following0
2) 2) 2) 2) 2)
the slope on whi#h the hose was !ilt was steep with a gra"ient of a!ot 45 " egrees engineers a"+ising on the !il"ing an" #onstr#tion of the hose too/ little #onsi"eration in assessing the sta!ilit$ of the slope an e#a+ation that was #arrie" ot on a neigh!oring lan" /nown as Lot 3''< at the *aterial ti*e !$ the thir" "efen"ant who was the #ontra#tor engage" in ere#ting a "o!le store$ !ngalow thereon hea+$ rainfall an" toe erosion at the ri+er !an/s !or"ering Lot 3''7)
s the reslt of the #ollapse, the plaintiffs sffere" "a*ages, an" all parties agree that the ant* shall !e as follows0
1a)
loss for the repla#e*ent of a new hose @M293,'''
1 1b) 1c) 1d)
!!" # $%& '() at ''(
loss of frnitre, fitres an" fittings @M43,623 gar" wages to loo/ after the partiall$ #ollapse" hose @M2,5'' rentals for alternati+e a##o**o"ation fro* 1< 8epte*!er 19<< to Jne 1994 @M25,'5'
@M364,173 The #ort shall now pro#ee" to "eal with the isse of lia!ilit$ of ea#h of the "efen"ants) A,*. /! ++/ '!+!.'*.
Page 6
The first "efen"ant was a fir* whi#h the plaintiffs #lai* that the forth an" fifth "efen"ants were its proprietors) gainst the*, the #ase of a#tion in tort is negligen#e, an" in #ontra#t is a !rea#h of the ter*s an" #on"itions of their appoint*ent) 8a+e an" e#ept for the first plaintiff&s #lai* that the fifth "efen"ant represente" hi*self to !e an engineer of the first "efen"ant when the first plaintiff "ealt with hi*, there is no other e+i"en#e a""#e" !$ the plaintiffs to spport their #ontention that the fifth "efen"ant was in fa#t a #o.proprietor of the first "efen"ant) ?n the #ontrar$, the forth "efen"ant has a"*itte" that the fifth "efen"ant was onl$ his #hief #ler/ an" "rafts*an) The fifth "efen"ant spports this #lai* an" there is no #hallenge !$ the plaintiffs against these assertions) rther, in the plea"ings of the plaintiffs, there is no #lai* against the fifth "efen"ant p ersonall$ for negligen#e or !rea#h of #ontra#t, lea+ing the onl$ #lai* against hi* to !e that of a #o.proprietor of the first "efen"ant) s there is an a!sen#e of e+i"en#e to spport this #ontention, the #lai* against the fifth "efen"ant shol" !e "is*isse") The fifth "efen"ant&s a#tions, at *ost, #an onl$ !e +i#ariosl$ attri!te" to the forth "efen"ant) A,*. /! +$ *.' +$/ '!+!.'*. n$ referen#e thereto to the first "efen"ant will in fa#t also appl$ to the forth "efen"ant) 8in#e the plaintiffs& #lai*s against the "efen"ants are !ase" o n two #ases of a#tion, the tort of negligen#e an" !rea#h of #ontra#t, the #ort shall "eal with the* separatel$ ta/ing the latter into #onsi"eration first) The #ontra#tal relationship !etween the plaintiffs an" the first "efen"ant %whi#h is !asi#all$ the forth "efen"ant( "eri+es fro* a letter of appoint*ent ten"ere" as eh P12) =n it, the first "efen"ant agree &as $or [the plaintiffs&] #onsltant engineers to prepare the #i+il an" str#tre "rawings an" #al#lations an" to s!*it to the respe#ti+e athorities&) These "rawings an" #al#lations, as the hea"ing in eh P12 spe#ifies are for the plaintiffs& hose) ?ther than this !rief "e#laration of o!ligation an" another two short paragraphs pertaining to the a*ont of professional fees #harge" an" the *o"e of pa$*ent, no other ter*s are ela!orate") !!" # $%& '() at ''' :$ the natre of the plaintiffs& #lai* on #ontra#tal lia!ilit$, the #ontentions are as follows0
1i) 1ii)
the first an">or forth "efen"ants faile" to e er#ise reasona!le #are an" s/ill in #arr$ing ot all aspe#ts of the engage*ent ha+ing regar" in parti#lar to the p ri*ar$ o!e#ti+e of the plaintiffs an" the first an">or forth "efen"ants faile" to p roperl$ an" a"eatel$ i*ple*ent an" ea*ine Lot 3''7, its soil #on"ition an" srron"ings to as#ertain the sita!ilit$ of the slope for the propose" hose)
s these #ontentions are not within an$ epress an" spe#ifi# #on"ition in the written #ontra#t, the onl$ !asis the plaintiffs #an rel$ on to s##ee" is !ase" on the legal #on#ept of there !eing i*plie" ter*s) The prin#iple of i*plie" ter*s !eing rea" into an$ #ontra#t is well a##epte" in or #orts, an" for it to !e appli#a!le #ertain #on"itions *st !e flfille") ?n these, Lor" 8i*on in the Pri+$ on#il #ase of BP *efinery
=n the #ir#*stan#es of this #ase, the #ontra#t !etween the plaintiffs an" the first an">or forth "efen"ants is one of perfor*an#e of ser+i#es ! $ professionals who ha+e "es#ri!e" the*sel+es as &#onslting #i+il an" str#tral engineers&) n$ persons "e#laring the*sel+es to !e s#h *st reasona!l$ an" eita!l$ !e epe#te" to ta/e reasona!le #are an" s/ill in the perfor*an#e of their #raft) =f this is not the #ase, wh$ then shol" a la$*an engage an" pa$ a pri#e for their ser+i#esH This ter* of the epe#te" reasona!le #are an" s/ill is so o!+ios in the first "efen"ant&s appoint*ent that the #ort fin"s it to #o*e within the a*!it of &it
Page 7
goes withot sa$ing&) rther, this ter* is #lear in epression an" #ontra"i#ts no other ter*s in eh P12) or these, it alifies to !e a##epte" as an i*plie" ter* of the #ontra#t !etween the plaintiffs an" the first an">or forth "efen"ants) Ba+ing a##epte" it as an i*plie" ter* in the #ontra#t, what then is the "egree of reasona!le #are an" s/ill i*plie" into the #ontra#tH Towar"s this, it *st !e the test as lai" "own in Bolam + ,riern 2ospital $anagement Committee [1957] 2 ll D@ 11<, whi#h is a"opte" !$ or #orts in Chin 7eow + >o+ernment of $alaysia 3 0nor [1967] 2 MLJ 45 an" Inder8eet 5ingh a?l Piara 5ingh + $a@lan bin &asman 3 4rs [1995] 2 MLJ 646) Thogh this proposition was epon"e" in a #ase of a#tion !ase" on negligen#e, for the prpose of "eter*ining the etent of reasona!le #are an" s/ill of a professional, it #annot !e *#h of a +arian#e) This approa#h was a"opte" !$ Lor" enning in the #ase of >rea+es 3 Co o+ernment of $alaysia [1967] 1 AL@ <13 at p <16) ))) &where $o get a sitation whi#h in+ol+es the se of so*e spe#ial s/ill or #o*peten#e, then the test as to whether there has !een negligen#e or not is not the test of the *an on the top of a lapha* o*ni!s, !e#ase he has not got this spe#ial s/ill) The test is the stan"ar" of the or"inar$ s/ille" *an eer#ising an" professing to ha+e that spe#ial s/ill) *an nee" not possess the highest epert s/ill it is well esta!lishe" law that i t is sffi#ient if he eer#ises the or"inar$ s/ill of an or"inar$ #o*petent *an eer#ising that parti#lar art)&
The forth "efen"ant throgh the +ehi#le of the first "efen"ant ha" professe" to !e a #onsltant #i+il an" str#tral engineer) Bis spe#ialiIe" #raft was to a"+ise an" "esign str#tres that are a"eate an" safe for a parti#lar prpose) Ah$ then "i" the hose #ollapse, an" was it "e to the forth "efen"ant failing to eer#ise his s/ill to the stan"ar" of a *an professing si*ilar professional #raftH To ea*ine this, one wol" ha+e to refer to the reports !$ the eperts) ?ne is prepare" !$ FT with r @a*li&s testi*on$ in #ort to ela!orate on it) The other is a report prepare" !$ r Toh on 27 pril 1995 . eh 2' . "one al*ost si $ears after the #ollapse of the hose, at the reest of the first an">or forth "efen"ants) :asi#all$, in FT&s report, the #ollapse of the hose was attri!te" to slope failre #ase" !$ the lateral *o+e*ent of the earth spporting the fon"ation of the hose) This was "e to infiltration of water, s#h as rainfall whi#h in#rease" satration of the soil #asing a rise in water ta!le an" a re"#tion in the soil s#tion) =t was state" in the report that0 ))) this reslt in a "e#rease in the effe#ti+e stress an" therefore soil sheer strength, to a point where the total sheer resisten#e along the potential failre srfa#e is insffi#ient to sstain eili!ri* of the slope)
=n FT&s opinion, thogh &it is etre*el$ "iffi#lt to pre"i#t the relationship !etween s#tion an" rainfall intensit$ for a parti#lar soil profile, a #onser+ati+e anal$sis #ol" ! e *a"e !$ ass*ing sheer strength para*eters for satrate" soil) This, #ople" with a reasona!le ass*ption of p ieIo*etri# hea"s within the slope, wol" gi+e a #onser+ati+e in"i#ation of the fa#tor of safet$ against failre of the slope) 8#h an anal$sis, !ase" on sheer strength an" other "ata as shown in rg Co @:M..@.<9.2, gi+es a safet$ of a!ot 1, in"i#ating that the slope was of "o!tfl sta!ilit$&) r Toh, thogh estione" the high water ta!le grafte" in FT&s report, is !asi#all$ in agree*ent with the theor$ of the *o+e*ent of soil) !!" # $%& '() at ''"
Page <
The *ain "ifferen#e !etween his report an" that of FT&s is that he attri!tes the failre of the slope not so *#h on the high water ta!le !t *ore on the toe failre of the slope near to the ri+er whi#h s!stantiall$ spporte" the original slope) Cow, let&s ea*ine what the forth "efen"ant sai" an" "i") ##or"ing to hi*, &"ealing with soil is li/e ta/ing ot "ail$ *eal&) irstl$, he ha" a +isal inspe#tion) ro* this, he sai", &one will !e a!le to "eter*ine whether there is a nee" to *a#hine !ore to o!tain the s!soil) Ahen !oring is ne#essar$, the etra#te" soil will !e sent to the la!orator$ for test&) or Lot 3''7 howe+er, no s!soil was etra#te" for la!orator$ ea*ination) =nstea", the forth "efen"ant st ha" a +isal ea*ination of the slope an" #a*e to a #on#lsion that the slope, !eing a #t slope as #o*pare" with a fille" slope, etra#tion !$ *a#hine !ore to o!tain the s!soil was not ne#essar$) Be also o!ser+e" that the slope was well "one with a safe gra"ient) Thogh he "i" noti#e the ri+er at the !otto* of Lot 3''7, he felt that it was a "istan#e awa$ fro* where the hose was to !e ere#te") Be also a""e" that0 = "i" not worr$ a !ot the ri+er !e#ase there was "rainage #ontri!tion !$ the original "e+eloper n"er sal state athorit$ reire*ent an" this is for the *aintenan#e of the ri+er !$ #hannelling it) = too/ it for grante" that the go+ern*ent will #hannel it)
=n respe#t of the soil, he too/ so*e sa*ples fro* the epose" la$er on the lan" in his han", ea*ine" it +isall$, an" #on#l"e" it to !e a silt$ san" soil) To hi*, this soil &has goo" "rainage properties it "rains +er$ fast&) s regar"s to the hose, piling was re#o**en"e" an" #arrie" ot st !efore the slope so that the str#tre of the hose wol" ¬ pla#e too *#h weight on the slope&) ll this e+i"en#e of the forth "efen"ant, #onsi"ere" in the light of the epert opinions of FT&s report an" that of r Toh&s, re+eal fn"a*ental wea/nesses) irstl$, as a"*itte" !$ the forth "efen"ant hi*self n"er #ross.ea*ination, &= #annot as#ertain the soil !$ si*pl$ loo/ing at it&) :$ st loo/ing an" feeling the soil, he agrees that the sheer strength of the soil #annot !e "eter*ine") Eet, it is an a##epte" fa#t !$ the two epert engineers an" to a large etent !$ the forth "efen"ant hi*self, that the "eter*ination of this sheer strength of the soil was one of the +ital fa#tors in "e#i"ing slope sta!ilit$) Dhasti+e tests were #on"#te" !$ !oth r @a*li an" r Tho in the la!orator$ on the natre an" strength of the grain fon" on Lot 3''7, !t with this professional, the forth "efen"ant, his "g*ent "epen"e" onl$ on +isal an" feel) rther, thogh silt$ san" soil has goo" "rainage properties, the forth "efen"ant also a"*its that &water also enters [into s#h soil] +er$ fast, an" water "oes not "rain ot i**e"iatel$ . there wol" !e a perio" when the water will !e hel" in the soil&) =f this is his theor$, then s#tion in the soil will !e satrate", affe#ting its stress effe#ti+eness to !e re"#e" to a point where the total sheer strength resistan#e wol" fail reslting in a lan"sli"e) 8o essential is the nee" for an engineer to "eter*ine the soil #on"ition to a high "egree of #ertaint$, parti#larl$ on a gra"ient s#h as Lot 3''7, that a failre to "o !!" # $%& '() at '' *st !e a##epte" as a !rea#h of i*plie" ter* of his appoint*ent to ta/e reasona!le #are) The le+el of the eisten#e of the water ta!le on the sai" lan" !efore the lan"sli"e is a hotl$ "e!ate" isse !etween r @a*li an" r Tho) :oth their ass*ptions on where this water ta!le was, is !ase" on fa#ts after the slope ha" faile") Ce+ertheless, "espite this "ifferen#e of opinion, !oth agree that it pla$s an i*portant part in the "eter*ination of slope sta!ilit$) =f the water ta!le is h igh, then the slope is *ore +lnera!le) This is onl$ ele*entar$ an" $et, a##or"ing to the forth "efen"ant, a alifie" engineer, he felt that, &at the ti*e = [he] loo/e" at the site an" "rew *$ plans, = [he] "i" not *a/e an ass*ption of where the water ta!le was&) This #ertainl$ is a #lear !rea#h of professional "ties) The presen#e of the ri+er #annot !e ignore") Thogh it *a$ pro+i"e s#eni# !eat$ to the owner of the lan" a!o+e, its potential of threat to the lan" was apparent) This, the #ort h a" the opportnit$ of o!ser+ing "ring a +isit to the site) The forth "efen"ant ha" also *a"e a si*ilar o!ser+ation an" a #on#lsion where, !esi"es what he ttere" earlier, a""s, &= #annot sa$ the ri+er poses a!soltel$ no "anger !t = ass*e" that the general "e+elop*ent wol" ha+e ta/en the ri+er into #onsi"eration&) This ass*ption together with his !elief that sin#e the owner pa$s "rainage #ontri!tion, the go+ern*ent will #hannel the ri+er are *ere pres*ptions, ta/en for grante" !$ hi*, an" not s!stantiate" or in+estigate" as a professional in this fiel" wol" ha+e "one) s a alifie" engineer on #i+il an" str#tral *atters, with a slope as steep as that fon"
Page 9
in Lot 3''7 #ople" with a ri+er of swift flowing water, the forth "efen"ant shol" ha+e ta/en serios an" in "epth #onsi"eration of its presen#e when re#o**en"ing, planning an" finall$ !il"ing a hose on the lan") Pres*ptions ha+e no pla#e in this tra"e parti#larl$ when str#tres to !e ere#te" thereon *st !e a!le to withstan" an" a##o**o"ate natral an" eisting for#es) Thogh finan#ial #osts #an o+er#o*e an$ slope insta!ilit$ in a sitation s#h as this, !t at the +er$ least the sa*e shol" !e *a"e /nown to the owner) =n this #ase, this was not e+en presente") a#e" with a sharp gra"ient as that in Lot 3''7, an" a ri+er at its !otto*, little #are an" attention see*e" to ha+e !een #on#entrate" on the slope whi#h pra#ti#all$ englfe" two thir"s of the lan" in Lot 3''7) =n the opinion of the #ort, an engineer of s#h alifi#ation an" s/ill as the forth "efen"ant shol" ha+e ta/en these *atters into *ore serios #onsi"eration when "esigning an" "e+ising plans that wol" ha+e *a"e the hose ere#te" thereon safe for ha!itation) =nstea", a #asal attit"e was a"opte" withot *#h #are an" s/ill pra#tise") 8#h wor/ is in"ee" a far #r$ fro* that epe#te" of a professional in a si*ilar fiel") s FT&s report prepare" also !$ a fir* of #onslting engineers re*ar/e" at p 1', &it is e+i"ent that no s$ste*ati# atte*pt to assess the sta!ilit$ of the slope !ase" on esta!lishe" engineering te#hnies& were a"opte") gain, this see*s to !e the +iew of r Toh, a alifie" engineer !$ his first "egree an" spporte" !$ the first an">or forth "efen"ants& own witness) r Toh opine" that, &the engineers shol" ha+e ta/en into a##ont all these fa#tors, ie water ta!le le+el pls wetting area !efore !il"ing a hose on s#h a !!" # $%& '() at ''! terrain&) ;n"er these #ir#*stan#es, the #ort here!$ fin"s the first an">or forth "efen"ants lia!le to the plaintiffs for !rea#h of #ontra#t) The #ort shall now *o+e on to #onsi"er the plaintiffs& #lai* for negligen#e) :asi#all$, the$ allege that the first an">or forth "efen"ants ha+e !rea#he" a "t$ of #are in failing to ta/e into serios #onsi"eration the sta!ilit$ of the slope on whi#h the hose was !ilt) gainst this, Mr Cgeow, #onsel for !oth the "efen"ants i**e"iatel$ *aintains that this #lai* is for pre e#ono*i# loss, the #ollapse" hose !eing the "efe#ti+e pro"#t) Aith this "efen#e, the #ort is for#e" to *o+e into an arena of fier#e legal e*!attle*ent presentl$ raging throghot the entire #o**on law pra#tising nations, an" to ta/e a legal stan") To n"erstan" this &loa"e"& ter* of pre e#ono*i# loss or e#ono*i# loss, one has to *o+e !a#/ in ti*e, to the #reation of the prin#iples of negligen#e in the infa*os #ase of .onoghue + 5te+enson [1932] 562) =n that #ase, Lor" t/in epon"e" the prin#iple of where there is a "t$ to eer#ise #are, reasona!le #are *st !e ta/en to a+io" a#ts or o*issions whi#h #an reasona!l$ !e foreseen to !e li/el$ to #ase ph$si#al inr$ to person or "a*age to his propert$ other than the "a*age" propert$ itself) :$ this proposition, a person withot #ontra#tal relationship #an #lai* fro* another, "a*ages for inr$ sffere" !$ hi* or "a*age to his propert$, other than the "efe#ti+e pro"#t itself) n$ #lai* to this "efe#ti+e pro"#t either in the *anner of *a/ing goo" or repla#e*ent thereto, is a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss) This #an !e !etter eplaine" in the #ontet of the fa#ts in .onoghue + 5te+enson itself) =n that #ase, the #ons*er of a !ottle of ginger !eer whi#h #ontaine" a "ea" snail was s##essfl in her #lai* a gainst the *anfa#trer for negligen#e reslting in inries to her health an" "a*age to her propert$ %if an$( other than the #onta*inate" !ottle of ginger !eer, it !eing the "efe#ti+e pro"#t) This prin#iple has !een applie" to "ifferent !t analogos fa#tal sitations for a s!stantial perio" of ti*e sin#e it was first esta!lishe", !t often the last #on"ition of this proposition was not seriosl$ #onsi"ere" in respe#t of "efe#ti+e hoses ntil the #ase of .utton + Bognor *egis /.C [1972] 1 -: 373) =n this #ase, the plaintiff was the se#on" pr#haser of a hose an" soon after she *o+e" in, she fon" serios "efe#ts in the internal str#tre of the !il"ing) =n+estigation re+eale" that this was #ase" !$ ina"eate fon"ation "e to the fa#t that it was #onstr#te" on the site of a r!!ish tip) 8he se" the lo#al #on#il whose !il"ing inspe#tor was negligent in failing to "ete#t the "efe#t at an earl$ stage of the !il"ing wor/s) The onl$ isse !efore the ort of ppeal in #onseen#e to an awar" of "a*ages to the plaintiff !$ the #ort of first instan#e for the esti*ate" #ost of repairs of the hose an" the sr+e$or fees, was whether the #on#il was lia!le to the plaintiff for pre e#ono*i# loss pre e#ono*i# loss !eing the #lai* on the "efe#ti+e pro"#t, ie the "efe#ti+e hose) The ort of ppeal "is*isse" the appeal an" fon" in fa+or of the plaintiff) :$ this, it *eans a "epartre fro* the prin#iple that the "efe#ti+e pro"#t itself #annot !e #lai*e") This gi+es rise to a #ase of re#o+er$ of e#ono*i# loss whi#h was not #onseent on an$ inr$ to person or " a*age to propert$) !!" # $%& '() at ')
Page 1'
.utton&s #ase was appro+e" !$ the Bose of Lor"s in 0nns + $erton %ondon BC [197<] 72<) Bere again, the plaintiff who too/ a long lease in a !lo#/ of flats fon" #ra#/s in the wall) The #ase was "e to ina"eate fon"ation) The !il"er was se" an" so was the lo#al #on#il, the latter, for allowing the !il"er to #onstr#t the !il"ing on ina"eate fon"ation or in failing to #arr$ ot ne#essar$ inspe#tion or appro+ing the fon"ation) The Bose of Lor"s he l" that the #on#il owe" a #o**on law "t$ of #are to the plaintiffs) This again is a #lai* !ase" on the "efe#ti+e pro"#t itself an" ths pre e#ono*i# loss #an !e re#o+ere") Thogh the a!o+e two athorities in+ol+e the lia!ilit$ of the lo#al #on#il, the Bose of Lor"s in &unior Books %td + 1eitchi Co %td [19<3] 1 52' "ealt "ire#tl$ with the !il"er&s lia!ilit$ to the owner of the !il"ing with who* he ha" no #ontra#tal relationship with) The$ too were fon" lia!le for negligen#e on a #lai* for e#ono*i# loss) =n 19<9, this legal proposition in the *otherlan" of #o**on law n"erwent a "rasti# #hange, an" retreate" fro* the !oar" +iew the$ too/ earlier) =n the #ase of . 3 , 6states %td 3 4rs + Church Commissioners for 6ngland 3 4rs [19<9] 177, the Bose of Lor"s "is*isse" the ort of ppeal&s "e#ision !asi#all$ on the following gron"s0
3) 3) 3)
an$ "t$ owe" !$ a #ontra#tor to a ho*e owner with respe#t of alit$ of the #onstr#tion *st arise in #ontra#t an" not in tort that to allow the re#o+era!ilit$ for the #ost of repairing "efe#ts in the !il"ing wol" ha+e the effe#t of #reating a non.#ontra#tal warrant$ of fitness the #ontra#tor #an onl$ !e hel" lia!le in tort to s!seent pr#haser on negligen#e whi#h #ase" ph$si#al inr$ or "a*age" to other propert$ other than the "a*age" propert$)
?n#e again, the fa#ts in this #ase are +irtall$ si*ilar to the #ases referre" to earlier) The "efen"ants were *ain #ontra#tors hire" !$ the owner to !il" a !lo#/ of flats) s!.#ontra#tor was engage" !$ the *ain #ontra#tor to #arr$ ot plastering wor/ whi#h the$ perfor*e" negligentl$) The plaintiff, a lessee to a flat in this !lo#/, "is#o+ere" that the plaster on the #eiling an" wall was loose) Be repaire" it an" se" the original #ontra#tor for the #ost of repairs an" esti*ate" #ost of ftre re*e"ial wor/s) The "e#ision of . 3 , 6states %td was fortifie" !$ the later #ase of $urphy + Brentwood .istrict Council [199'] 2 ll D@ 9'<, in whi#h the Bose of Lor"s epressl$ "eparte" fro* 0nns) Bere, the "efen"ant&s #on#il appro+e" the "esign on the fon"ation of a hose whi#h was fon" !$ a s!seent pr#haser to !e "efe#ti+e) The highest #ort of appeal in the ;nite" Fing"o* rle" that the "efen"ant&s #on#il owe" no "t$ of #are to the plaintiff in respe#t of the "a*age of the /in" sstaine") The reasons, as Lor" Feith pt it %at p 921..(0 To start with, if s#h a "t$ [of #are] is in#*!ent on the lo#al athorit$, a si*ilar "t$ *st ne#essaril$ !e in#*!ent also on the !il"er of the hose) =f the !il"er of the hose is to !e so s!e#t, there #an !e no gron"s in logi# or in prin#iple for not eten"ing lia!ilit$ on li/e gron"s to !!" # $%& '() at ') the *anfa#trer of a #hattel) That wol" open on an e#ee"ingl$ wi"e fiel" of #lai*s, in+ol+ing the intro"#tion of so*ething in the natre of a trans*issi!le warrant$ of alit$) The pr#haser of an arti#le who "is#o+ere" that it sffere" fro* a "angeros "efe#t !efore that "efe#t ha" #ase" an$ "a*age wol" !e entitle" to re#o+er fro* the *anfa#trer the #ost of re#tif$ing the "efe#t, an", pres*a!l$, if the arti#le was not #apa!le of e#ono*i# repair, the a*ont of loss sstaine" throgh "is#ar"ing it) Then, it wol" !e opene" to estion whether there shol" !e a right to re#o+er$ where the "efe#t ren"ers the arti#le not "angeros !t *erel$ seless) The e#ono*i# loss in either #ase wol" !e the sa*e) There wol" also !e a pro!le* where the "efe#t #ases the "estr#tion of the arti#le i tself, withot #asing an$ personal inr$ or "a*age to other propert$) si*ilar pro!le* #ol" arise, if the 0nns prin#iple is to !e treate" as #onfine" to real propert$, where the !il"ing #ollapse when no##pie")
=n another part of his "g*ent, Lor" Feith pro#ee"e" with %at p 923(0 8o far as poli#$ #onsi"erations are #on#erne", it is no "o!t the #ase that eten"ing the s#ope of the tort of negligen#e *a$ ten" to inhi!it #arelessness an" i*pro+e stan"ar"s of *anfa#trer an" #onstr#tion) ?n the other han", o+er/ill *a$ present its own "isa"+antages)
;nfortnatel$, these senti*ents "o not see* to !e share" !$ the o**onwealth #onterparts) 8tarting with Cew ealan", the #ase of In+ercargill City Council + 2amlin [1996] 1 ll D@ 756 refse" to follow $urphy ) =roni#all$, this is an appeal hear" !efore the Pri+$ on#il whi#h affir*e" the "e#ision of the Cew ealan"
Page 11
ort of ppeal for phol"ing the trial "ge&s fin"ing that the #it$ #on#il was lia!le for negligen#e to the plaintiff !ase" on the following fa#ts) The plaintiff #ontra#te" a !il"er who sol" hi* the lan" to #onstr#t a hose thereon) =n the #orse of #onstr#tion, a !il"ing inspe#tor fro* the #it$ #on#il inspe#te" an" appro+e" the wor/ to !e in a##or"an#e with the #on#il&s !$.laws) Eears later, #ra#/s appeare" in the hose lea"ing to the plaintiff&s #lai* against the #it$ #on#il) The reasons forwar"e" !$ the Pri+$ on#il for not a"opting . 3 , 6states %td an" $urphy appear to !e0
2a) 2b)
Cew ealan" ort of ppeal is entitle" to "e+elop the #o**on law of Cew ealan" a##or"ing to lo#al poli#$ #onsi"eration in areas of #o**on law whi#h are "e+eloping an" the per#eption in Cew ealan" is that the #o**nit$ stan"ar"s an" e#eption "e*an"e" the i*position of a "t$ of #are on lo#al athorities an" !il"ers ali/e to ensre #o*plian#e of !$. laws, an" the ort of ppeal of Cew ealan" has !ilt p a long line of athorit$ !ase" on lin/ #on#ept of #ontrol !$ the lo#al athorit$ of !il"ing wor/s throgh the enfor#e*ent of its !$. laws, an" relian#e on that #ontrol !$ the pr#haser)
Cet, #o*es ana"a in the #ase of Winnipeg Condominium Corp No #) + Bird Construction Co %td 3 4rs %1995( 121 L@ %4th D"( 193) Bere, a "e+eloper entere" into a #ontra#t with a gene ral #ontra#tor #alle" :ir" onstr#tion Lt" %&:ir"&( to #onstr#t an apart*ent !lo#/) Aor/s were #arrie" ot a##or"ing to plans "rawn !$ the ar#hite#ts . 8*ith arter) s !!" # $%& '() at '); for the eternal #la""ing, it #onsiste" of sla!s of stones whi#h were installe" !$ a s!.#ontra#tor) The plaintiff, who !e#a*e the s!seent owner of the apart*ent, ha" to repair a se#tion of the #la""ing whi#h fell) Be #lai*e" fro* :ir", 8*ith arter an" the s!.#ontra#tor for #ost of repairs in#rre" "e to their negligen#e) :ir" applie" to stri/e the plaintiff&s #lai* on the gron" that it "is#lose" no reasona!le #ase of a#tion) The #ort of first instan#e "isallowe" the appli#ation whi#h was phel" !$ the ana"ian 8pre*e ort) La orest J, "eli+ering the "g*ent of the 8pre*e ort, is of the following +iews0 The n"erl$ing rationale for this #on#lsion is that the person who parti#ipates in the #onstr#tion of a large hose an" per*anent str#tre whi#h, if negligentl$ #onstr#te", has the #apa#it$ to #ase serios "a*age to other persons an" propert$ in the #o**nit$, shol" !e hel" to a reasona!le stan"ar" of #are)
Be then #ontines0 This is i*portant !e#ase, in *$ +iew, the nfortnate reslt of the reasoning in . 3 , 6states is that it lea+es the s!seent pr#haser with no re*e"$ against the #ontra#tor who #onstr#t the !il"ing with s!stan"ar" *aterials an" s!stan"ar" wor/*anship an" there!$ pts s!seent pr#hasers at #onsi"era!le ris/)
=n stralia, initiall$ in the #ase of 5utherland 5hire Council + 2eyman 3 0nor %19<5( 157 L@ 424 6' L@ 1 fon" that the #on#il was not gilt$ of negligen#e for appro+ing plans whi#h s!seentl$ showe" ina"eate footings) Bowe+er, in their latest lan"*ar/ "e#ision in Bryan + $aloney %1995( 12< L@ 163, the Bigh ort of stralia !$ a *aorit$ spporte" the trial "ge&s rling that the #on#il was lia!le for negligen#e to a s!seent owner of the propert$ who was pt to loss !$ the "efe#ti+e hose) =n their "g*ent, the Bigh ort of stralia has this to sa$0 The relationship !etween the* [the s!seent pr#haser an" the !il"er] is *ar/e" !$ proi*it$ in a n*!er of i*portant respe#ts) The #onne#ting lin/ of the hose is i tself a s!stantial one) =t is a per*anent str#tre to !e se" in"efinitel$ an", in this #ontr$, is li/el$ to represent one of the *ost signifi#ant, an" possi!l$ the *ost signifi#ant, in+est*ent whi#h the s!seent owner will *a/e "ring his or her lifeti*e) =t is o!+iosl$ foreseea!le !$ s#h a !il"er that the negligent #onstr#tion of a hose with ina"eate footings is li/el$ to #ase e#ono*i# loss, of the /in" s!stantiate" !$ Mrs Malone$, to the owner of the hose at the ti*e when ina"ea#$ of the footing first !e#o*e *anifest)
loser to ho*e in 8ingapore, a si*ilar isse appeare" in the #ase of *5P 0rchitects Planners 3 6ngineers + 4cean ,ront Pte %td 3 anor appeal [1996] 1 8L@ 113) LP Thean, "ge of the ort of ppeal pra#ti#all$ #o*!e" the entire #o**on law #ontries for enlighten*ent as to whether the plaintiff, a *anage*ent #orporation of a #on"o*ini*, #ol" se the "e+elopers an" the ar#hite#ts for pre e#ono*i# loss arising ot of falt$ #onstr#tion of the #o**on propert$ in the !il"ing) ;lti*atel$, the ort of ppeal of 8ingapore
Page 12
ele#te" not to follow $urphy an" . 3 , 6states an" fon" that the !il"ers an" ar#hite#ts #an !e lia!le for negligen#e) !!" # $%& '() at ')# t ho*e, two Bigh ort "e#isions are *a"e on this s!e#t) The first is the #ase of 7era8aan $alaysia + Cheah ,oong Chiew 3 0nor [1993] 2 MLJ 439) Aan Moha*e" J presi"e" as follows %at pp 447=.44<:(0 Fergian $ang "iala*i oleh plaintif a"alah /ergian ata /ehilangan e/ono*i tlen [pre e#ono*i# losses], "an "efen"an /etiga ti"a/ !oleh "i/ena/an tanggngan [lia!ilit$] "i !awah tort "i atas /ergian $ang "iala*i oleh plaintif "ala* /es ini oleh /erana tia"a siapapn $ang #e"era ata ti"a/ harta /epn$aan orang lain rosa/ a/i!at "aripa"a per!atan ata salahla/ oleh "efen"an /etiga) Feptsan $ang "i!at oleh ewan Pertanan [Bose of Lor"s] "ala* /es $urphy + Brentwood .C "an lain.lain /es lagi $ang *e*!at /eptsan $ang sa*a, a"alah sangat *nasa!ah, !erpattan "an sepattn$a "iteri*a sehinggga !ila.!ila *asa pn)
Peh 8wee hin J sitting as a Bigh ort "ge in a *ore re#ent #ase of Teh 7hem 4n 3 0nor + 9eoh 3 Wu .e+elopment 5dn Bhd 3 4rs [1995] 2 MLJ 663 ha" the opportnit$ to #onfront this isse) Be a"opte" the "e#isions in $urphy an" , 3 . 6state) Thogh not "ire#tl$ stating the reason for his preferen#e, the #ort was of the +iew that it was fon"e" in the fear of eten"ing the s#ope of lia!ilit$ &for an in"eter*inate #lass&) =t is rather nfortnate that we are "epri+e" of Peh 8wee hin J&s frther ela!oration an" in "epth reasonings for whi#h he is highl$ a##lai*e", parti#larl$ when &there are *an$ #ases whi#h are not *entione" in the "g*ent an" whi#h allowe" for re#o+er$ of pre e#ono*i# loss in an a#tion for tort&, !t he felt that &this is neither the pla#e not the ti*e to "is#ss all of the*&) =n Teh 7hem 4n, the pr#hasers pr#hase" a hose fro* the +en"or>!il"er) fter ta/ing possession, the$ fon" #ra#/s on the wall, the gron" was ne+en an" the pstairs !athroo* lea/ing) This was repaire" !$ the +en"or>!il"er !t s!seent "efe#ts appeare") This lea" to a series of #lai*s an" #onter#lai*s !etween the pr#hasers, the +en"or>!il"er an" the ar#hite#ts an" engineers who were in+ol+e" in the "esign an" "rawing of the hose) The ar#hite#ts an" engineers #onten"e" that the pr#hasers& #lai* !eing for pre e#ono*i# loss is not re#o+era!le in negligen#e) To this, Peh 8wee hin J agree" when he sai" %at p 677(0 The "e#ision of . 3 , 6states in the Bose of Lor"s, in so far as it #on#erns the non.re#o+era!ilit$ of s#h pre e#ono*i# loss as "es#ri!e" a!o+e !$ an owner of the hose against the !il"er in tort, ie !$ wa$ of an a#tion in negligen#e, was #onfir*e" twi#e !$ the Bose of Lor"s in $urphy + Brentwood .istrict Council [199'] 2 ll D@ 9'< an" .epartment of 6n+ironment + Thomas Bates 3 5ons %td [199'] 2 ll D@ 943)
=n the light of the s!stantial persasi+e athorities on these #onfli#ting #lai*s an" withot an$ "eter*ination fro* or appellate #orts, the #ort is i*pelle" pon to "e#i"e whether to allow a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss or to ree#t the sa*e) or this, it is essential to nearth fro* the #ite" athorities the rational the #orts epon"e" in arri+ing at their "e#isions) or those against allowing the #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss, it is pri*aril$ to a+io" the #reation of lia!ilit$ &for an in"eter*inate a*ont for an in"eter*inate ti*e to an in"eter*inate #lass&, to ote ar"oIo J in !!" # $%& '() at ')( the *eri#an #ase of /tramares + Touche %1931( 255 CE 17', otherwise it wol" &open an e #ee"ingl$ wi"e fiel" of #lai*s& or #reating &en"less in"eter*inate lia!ilit$& or &the o +er/ill *a$ present its own "isa"+antages&) ?n the opposing #a*p in fa+or, one has &#o**nit$&s epe#tation an" "e*an" of thir" parties& to eer#ise "e #are an" #o*plian#e with rele+ant !$.laws, or the "epri+ation of relief wol" not stif$ the e#ono*i# loss sffere" on the "efe#ti+e pro"#t, or the *oral "t$ of thir" part$ to eer#ise #are) ?f all the reasons against allowing pre e#ono*i# loss, the fn"a*ental rational is still to pre+ent the #reation or etension of lia!ilit$ to &an in"eter*inate a*ont for an in"eter*inate ti*e to an in"eter*inate #lass&) :t this #ol" !e a *is#on#eption an" an nallie" fear) =nterpreting throgh the #ir#*stan#es of all the #ases #ite", the a*ont of "a*ages so #lai*e" is not an in"eter*inate a*ont) The$ are the epenses an" #osts in+ol+e" in repairing, *a/ing goo" or repla#ing the "efe#ti+e pro"#t, or #ost that *a$ !e in+ol+e" in ensring the "efe#ti+e pro"#t is of the #on"ition that it shol" !e in the first pla#e) s for in"eter*inate ti*e, it *a$ !e tre that lia!ilit$ to a s!seent owner *ight !e greater than the first owner !t as the Bigh ort in stralia in Bryan + $aloney %1995( 12< L@ 163 states, it #an &li*ite" !$ the ele*ent of reasona!leness !oth in the reire*ent that the "a*age !e foreseea!le an" in the #ontent of the "t$ of
Page 13
#are&) =n respe#t of in"eter*inate #lass, the #ort feels that it is !est pt in the Bigh ort Jsti#es in Bryan + $aloney as follows0 The si*ilarities !etween the relationship !etween the !il"er an" the first owner an" the relationship !etween !il"er an" s!seent owner as regar"s the parti#lar /in" of e#ono*i# loss are of *#h greater signifi#an#e than the "ifferen#es to whi#h attention has !een "rawn, na*el$ the a!sen#e of "ire#t #onta#t or "ealing an" the possi!l$ eten"e" ti*e in whi#h lia!ilit$ *ight arise) :oth relationships are #hara#teriIe", to a #o*para!le etent !$ the ass*ption of responsi!ilit$ on the part of the !il"er an" li/el$ relian#e on the part of the owner) Co "istin#tion #an !e "rawn !etween the two relationship in so far as the foreseea!ilit$ of a parti#lar /in" of e#ono*i# loss is #on#erne" it is o!+iosl$ foreseea!le that loss will !e sstaine" !$ whi#he+er of the first or s!seent owners who happen to !e the owner at the ti*e when the ina"ea#$ of the footing !e#o*es *anifest)
Aith these arg*ents, one won"ers wh$ there is s#h li*itation i*pose" pon a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss, for after all the entire #on#ept of negligen#e is to eten" lia!ilit$ !e$on" the !or"ers of pri+it$) To i*pose s#h a restri#tion is highl$ ineita!le parti#lartl$ in #ases where the "t$ of #are an" the !rea#h of s#h "t$ are fon" to !e s!stantiate") There shol" !e no fear that #arelessness will !e inhi!ite" an" the stan"ar" of *anfa#tring an" #onstr#tion se#tion will !e i*pro+e" !$ the a!olition of this so #alle" li*itation to a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss, for after all, is it not this +ale that so#iet$ fro* one generation to the net stri+e to a#hie+e) To a"here to ol" prin#iples an" lea+ing it to Parlia*ent to resol+e the isse is ! $ no *eans a soltion, sin#e the prin#iple of negligen#e itself is fon"e" on #o**on law, an" it is #o**on law of the ;nite" Fing"o* that has a #hange of heart) Possi!l$, this #ol" !e a poli#$ "e#ision in that !!" # $%& '() at ')' #ontr$ as #an !e refle#te" in Lor" Feith&s "g*ent in $urphy when he sai" %at p 923..B(0 ))) 0nns has the effe#t of i*posing on the !il"ers generall$ a lia!ilit$ going far !e$on" that whi#h Parlia*ent thoght fit to i*pose on hose !il"ers alone !$ the efe#ti+e Pre*ises #t 1972, a statte +er$ *aterial to the poli#$ of the "e#ision !t not a"+erte" to in it)
=n Mala$sia, we "o not possess this pie#e of legislation) To a"opt the "e#isions of $urphy an" . 3 , 6states whi#h are !ase" on a foreign poli#$ of no appli#ation here wol" lea+e the entire grop of s!seent pr#hasers in this #ontr$ withot relief against errant !il"ers, ar#hite#ts, engineers an" relate" personnel who are fon" to ha+e erre") =f there is an$ fear that this approa#h *a$ en#*!er the lo#al athorities to pa$ ot s!stantial #lai*s "e to their negligen#e in granting appro+als or inspe#ting !il"ing wor/s, there is s 95 of the 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1977 whi#h prohi!its s#h athorities to !e se") This legal prin#iple for a##epting a #lai* for e#ono*i# loss is o!+iosl$ not onl$ #onfine" to "efe#ti+e !il"ings an" str#tres) =t has far g reater i*pa#t on all sitations !$ analog$ an" if li*ite" !$ the li*itations i*pose" as in $urphy an" . 3 , 6states, it wol" !e grossl$ ineita!le with sti#e not !eing ser+e") or these reasons, it is the opinion of the #ort that a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss #an !e entertaine" in an a#tion for negligen#e) Cow that the #ort has fon" that a #lai* for pre e#ono*i# loss #an !e e ntertaine", we shall retrn to the #ir#*stan#es of or #ase) The legal prin#iples to !e applie" in this #lai* of negligen#e against the first an">or forth "efen"ants *st #ertainl$ !e that of Bolam + ,riern 2ospital $anagement Committee [1957] 2 ll D@ 11< sin#e this is a #lai* !ase" on professional negligen#e) s this prin#iple is si*ilar to that as fon" n"er the #ase of a#tion for !rea#h of #ontra#t whi#h has !een ela!orate" earlier, an" sin#e the fa#ts are also i"enti#al, there is no ne#essit$ for the #ort to re.ea*ine the*) :ase" on si*ilar gron"s as those state" earlier n"er the #ase of a#tion for !rea#h of #ontra#t, the #ort here!$ fin"s the first an">or forth "efen"ants lia!le to the plaintiffs for negligen#e) A,*. /! !.' '!+!.'*. The #ort shall now *o+e on to the plaintiffs& #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant, the Malis aerah o*!a/) The #lai*, fro* the plea"ings is !ase" on negligen#e an" !rea#h of stattor$ "ties) The plaintiffs felt that the se#on" "efen"ant owe" the resi"ents in the +i#init$ of, inter alia, Lot 3''<, legal "ties whi#h in#l"e" %epressl$ or i*plie"l$( a*ong others, the following0
4) 4)
to ee#te wor/s of s#h general a"+antage to the inha!itants of the lo#al athorit$ area to "o all things ne#essar$ for or #on"#i+e to the p!li# safet$, health an" #on+enien#e
Page 14
2
4)
3)
!!" # $%& '() at ')) to "o or #ase to !e ta/en or "one s#h steps or a#ts so a s to pre+ent *atters whi#h are li/el$ to en"anger p!li# safet$ or #ase "a*age to properties within the lo#al area in#l"ing an" not li*ite" to the proper sper+ision an" ea*ination of proper an" safe "rainage an" flow of water within the area an" the re*o+al of an$ "angers arising therefro* an" sper+ision an" appro+al of, inter alia, !il"ing plans in respe#t of !il"ings an" other str#tre propose" to !e !ilt or ere#te" within the lo#al athorit$ area)
=n the parti#lars of the plaintiffs& state*ent of #lai*, frther ela!orations are gi+en as follows0
5) 5) 5)
appro+ing !il"ing plans s!*itte" withot sper+ising, inter alia, the "etails of "esign, the a"ea#$ of soil test failing to ta/e steps to re#tif$ the erosion a"oining an" srron"ing the ri+er !an/s !$ realigning the ri+er there!$ #asing an erosion of tow of slope an" an" enhan#ing the "a*age an" in all #ir#*stan#es of the #ase, failing to ta/e a"eate steps to pre+ent "anger !eing #ase" to neigh!oring properties an" s#h steps to ensre p!li# safet$ to the inha!itants of the lo#al athorit$ area)
The se#on" "efen"ant is a stattor$ !o"$ #reate" n"er the Lo#al o+ern*ent #t 1976 on 1 Janar$ 1977) ro* the state*ent of #lai*, thogh the allegations of !rea#h with parti#lars are spelle" ot, there is no *ention of what spe#ifi# pro+ision an" of whi#h statte !in"ing on the se#on" "efen"ant has !een !rea#he") Thogh estions "ring trial were "ire#te" to witnesses in relation to the 8treet, rainage an" :il"ing #t 1974 %&#t 133&( an" the ;nifor* :$.laws 19<4, it was not ntil the plaintiffs& #onsel&s s!*ission that the following spe#ifi# se#tions of the laws are sai" to !e !rea#he"0
6) 6) 6) 4) 3)
1)
8e#tion 1'1%ee( of the Lo#al o+ern*ent #t 1976 relates that &the lo#al athorit$ shall ha+e the power to "i+ert, straighten, "efine" an" #analise the #orse of an$ strea*, #hannel or water#orse& 8e#tion 53%1( of #t 133 reires the lo#al athorit$ to *aintain an" /eep in repair water #orses n"er the #ontrol of the lo#al athorit$ 8e#tion 7' of #t 133 e*powers the lo#al #on#il to or"er #essation of earth wor/s where the safet$ of life or propert$ is affe#te" or is li/el$ to !e affe#te" :$.laws <%3( an" 17 of the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.Laws 19<4 #onfers powers on lo#al athorit$ to "isappro+e !il"ing an" str#tral plans s!*itte" for its appro+al :$.law 1' of the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.Laws 19<4 sets ot a reire*ent for !il"ing plans s!*itte" to lo#al athorit$, to #ontain #o*plete lines of srfa#e water "is#harge to the propose" "rains, whi#h the plaintiffs #lai* was a!sent in the site plans for their lot s!*itte" !$ the first an">or forth "efen"ants an" 3 !!" # $%& '() at ')" :$.law 25%2( of the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.Laws 19<4 reires that &all ))) open spa#es in an" aron" !il"ings shall !e sita!l$ prote#te" against soil erosion&, of whi#h the se#on" "efen"ant has faile" to ensre rele+ant steps to prote#t this)
ro* these allegations of the plaintiffs, three *atters nee" to !e #onsi"ere") irstl$, whether the plea"ings of the plaintiffs sffi#ientl$ "is#lose *aterial fa#ts to spport the plaintiffs& #lai* for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ against the se#on" "efen"ant) =n or"er to s##ee" n"er a #ase of a#tion for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$, the plaintiffs *st show that the$ #a*e within the #lass of person inten"e" !$ an #t or reglation to !e p rote#te", that the stattor$ pro+ision was !ro/en, an" that the$ sffere" "a*age an" that this "a*age was #ase" !$ the !rea#h of the pro+ision . see 0tkin Court ,orms Kol 2' %2n" D"( %1993 =sse( p 226) =n essen#e, the entire #lai* !ase" on !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ "epen"s on the pro+ision of the statte or !$.laws !eing allege" to ! e !rea#he") The affe#te" legal pro+ision has ths ! e#o*e a *aterial fa#t that nee"s to !e "is#lose", for failre to "o so will #ase the "efen"ant to !e #aght !$ srprise an" !e
Page 15
pre"i#e" in their "efen#e) ;nli/e the general p rin#iples of plea"ing where laws nee" not !e plea"e", in an a#tion !ase" on a !rea#h of stattor$ "t$, it is a!soltel$ ne#essar$ an" essential for the plaintiffs to "is#lose the spe#ifi# legislation affe#te" for it is the !asis for the plaintiffs& #lai*) =n fa#t, this is the approa#h re#o**en"e" in the 0tkin Court ,orms, where all the pre#e"ents #o+ering this aspe#t of the #lai* fll$ "is#lose the rele+ant pro+ision of the statte or !$.laws allege" to !e !rea#he") =n this #ase, the se#on" "efen"ant s""enl$ fon" itself !eing allege" to ha+e !rea#he" a s!stantial n*!er of laws an" !$.laws "ring the #orse of the plaintiffs& s!*ission) Thogh in the #orse of estioning +arios witnesses, *atters were raise" relating to appro+al an" sper+ision of the hose !efore, "ring an" after its #onstr#tion, an" *atters relating to who was in #harge of ri+ers, there was no in"i#ation on isses relating to prote#tion against soil erosion, #o*plete lines of srfa#e water an" #essation of earth wor/s where safet$ of life an" propert$ are affe#te") These *st !e *atters whi#h #a*e to the attention of the plaintiffs while preparing their s!*issions) To allow the* to !e s""enl$ raise" at this stage wol" !e #o*pletel$ nfair to the se#on" "efen"ant who ha" no opportnit$ to prepare an" answer the*) 8e#on"l$, the ;nifor* :il"ing :$.laws 19<4 in whi#h +arios pro+isions are sai" to ha+e !een !rea#he" "i" not #o*e into for#e in the 8tate of 8elangor ntil 1 Janar$ 19<6) The !il"ing plans of the hose was s!*itte" aron" 19<4 an" the #o*plete" hose was han"e" o+er for possession to the plaintiffs on 11 pril 19<5) Therefore, an$ allegations for !rea#h of stattor$ "ties whi#h in+ol+e the se#on" "efen"ant in respe#t of this pie#e of legislation !efore it #a*e into for#e #annot !e sstaine" there !eing no ena#te" statte at the *aterial ti*e to !e !rea#he") Thogh the se#on" "efen"ant *a$ ha+e relie" on this !$.law as a gi"eline in the #orse of their "ties !efore the ena#t*ent of this statte in the 8tate of 8elangor, in a #lai* for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$, relian#e *st !e on a !!" # $%& '() at ') lawfl ena#t*ent an" not on a pie#e of legislation that has no for#e of law in a parti#lar area) Thir"l$, !$ +irte of s 95%2( of #t 1330 The 8tate thorit$, lo#al athorit$ an" an$ p!li# offi#er or offi#er or e*plo$ee of the lo#al athorit$ shall not !e s!e#t to an$ a#tion, #lai*, lia!ilities or "e*an" whatsoe+er arising ot of an$ !il"ing or other wor/s #arrie" ot in a##or"an#e with the pro+isions of this #t or an$ !$.laws *a"e theren"er or !$ reason of the fa#t that s#h !il"ing wor/s or plans thereof are s!e#t to inspe#tion an" appro+al !$ the 8tate thorit$, lo#al athorit$ or s#h p!li# offi#er or offi#er or e*plo$ee of the 8tate thorit$ or the lo#al athorit$ an" nothing i n this #t or an$ !$.laws *a"e theren"er shall *a/e it o!ligator$ for the 8tate thorit$ or the lo#al athorit$ to inspe#t an$ !il"ing, !il"ing wor/s or *aterials or the site of an$ propose" !il"ing to as#ertain that the pro+isions of this #t or an$ !$.laws *a"e theren"er are #o*plie" with or that plans, #ertifi#ates an" noti#es s!*itte" to hi* are a##rate)
This ee*ption #lase is #lear, epli#it an" na*!igos in pre+enting this #ase of a#tion against the se#on" "efen"ant to s##ee" e+en in the e+ent of a !rea#h of s#h stattor$ "ties !$ the se#on" "efen"ant) The plaintiffs& #onsel fee!l$ atte*pts to o+er#o*e this pro+ision !$ s!*itting that this pro+iso is onl$ appli#a!le where wor/s were #arrie" ot, an" not when no wor/, as in this #ase, has !een "one) This arg*ent is #o*pletel$ "e+oi" of *erit, for this s 95 of #t 133 e+en ee*pts o!ligations on the part of the se#on" "efen"ant to #arr$ ot #ertain fn#tions pro+i"e" for !$ the #t an" an $ !$.laws *a"e theren"er) :ase" on the reasons state" a!o+e, the plaintiffs& #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ *st therefore fail) Trning now onto the plaintiffs& #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant on negligen#e) There is no ne#essit$ for the #ort to repeat the athorities an" si*ilar line of approa#h a"opte" in the #ase of a#tion for negligen#e against the first an">or forth "efen"ants) The sa*e prin#iple an" rling appl$ here e#ept that in respe#t of the se#on" "efen"ant, the$ are ee*pte" fro* !eing se" n"er s 95 of #t 133) Ahether it is a #ase of a#tion for !rea#h of stattor$ "t$ or negligen#e, the se#on" "efen"ant is not s!e#te" &to an$ a#tion, #lai*, lia!ilities or "e*an"& arising ot of the fa#ts as "is#lose" in the #ase) ##or"ingl$, the #ort here!$ "is*isses the plaintiffs& #lai* against the se#on" "efen"ant for negligen#e) or the se#on" "efen"ant, the plaintiffs& entire #lai* against the* *st therefore !e "is*isse" with #osts) A,*. /! /$' '!+!.'*. The plaintiffs& #lai* against the thir" "efen"ant is !asi#all$ for nne#essaril$ allowing infiltration or seepage of water into the gron" an">or allowing it to o+erflow onto Lot 3''7 #asing satration in the soil reslting in
Page 16
lan"sli"e whi#h !roght "own the hose) To spport this #ontention, for allegations were *a"e against the thir" "efen"ant) The$ are0 !!" # $%& '() at ')!
7) 7) 7) 5)
inserting a pipe into the p!li# "rain fronting Lot 3''9 whi#h #ase" rainwater to o+erflow onto Lot 3''9, Lot 3''< an" Lot 3''7 !lo#/ing the p!li# "rain fronting Lot 3''< with plasti# sheets an" woo"en "e!ris there!$ #asing rainwater to o+erflow onto Lot 3''< an" Lot 3''7 e#a+ating a tren#h *easring 6' feet 1' feet 3 feet on Lot 3''<, #asing it to #olle#t a #on#entration of rainwater whi#h seepe" an" infiltrate" into the gron" an" lea+ing trans+erse "rains !ilt along the slope of Lot 3''< to en" three arter of the wa$ "o wn the slope instea" to the ri+er)
s regar"s to the first allegation, the pipe was lai" o+er a #ertain se#tion of the p!li# "rain fronting Lot 3''9 where the #on#rete #l+erts were re*o+e") The prpose for this eer#ise was to ena!le sppl$ lorries to roll into Lot 3''9 where the thir" "efen"ant ha" se" it as a storage area to #onstr#t the hose on Lot 3''<) The first plaintiff in his testi*on$ was +er$ #onfse" as to whether the pipe was *a"e of #la$ or *etal while the thir" "efen"ant *aintaine" that it was a *etal pipe whi#h was ne+er #logge") photograph, eh 21%2( was *a"e a+aila!le for the #ort&s ea*ination) =t shows a *etal pipe with a water*ar/ of 3 4 in height aron" the #ir#*feren#e) =t is *a"e of *etal instea" of #la$ an" there are no signs that it has !een !ro/en) Aith this water*ar/ of 3 4 height at the #ir#*feren#e, in all pro!a!ilit$ the pipe was sel"o* fll to its !ri* to ha+e #ase" the water to o+erflow) ll these "ispell the plaintiffs& first allegation, an" withot *ore positi+e e+i"en#e in spport other than the first plaintiff&s re#olle#tions whi#h are #ontra"i#te" in *aterial parti#lars !$ the photographs, the #ort fin"s the first allegation against the thir" "efen"ant withot *erits) The net allegation is the !lo#/age of the p!li# "rain fronting Lot 3''< with plasti# sheets an" woo"en "e!ris) 8!stantiating this frther, the plaintiffs& #onsel points ot a 1 2 pie#e #on#rete #l+ert left on one si"e of the p!li# "rain as #an !e seen fro* the photograph +iew F ten"ere" !$ the thir" "efen"ant) The thir" "efen"ant of #orse "enies all this an" insists that at no ti*e was this area !lo#/e") a#e" with this sitation of #onfli#ting oral testi*onies, the #ort is for#e" to ea*ine other e+i"en#e, an" the !est a+aila!le are the photographs ten"ere") These photographs thogh ta/en after the e+ent are proi*ate enogh to gi+e the #ort an in"i#ation of the #on"ition of the pla#e at the *aterial ti*e) irstl$, the p!li# "rain was a!ot 3 feet "eep *easring fro* the !otto* of the #l+ert to the le+el of the gron") Aith this "epth an" fro* testi*onies of +arios witnesses, the #ort fin"s that the p!li# "rain was sffi#ient to #arr$ off an$ rainwater fro* the front se#tion of Lot 3''9 an" Lot 3''<) ro* the photographs, e#ept for a Iin# sheet shape" to for* a groo+e to "ire#t rain water #o*ing "own fro* Lot 3''9 on to the p!li# "rain of Lot 3''<, there are no woo"en plan/s or plasti# sheets in"i#ate" !!" # $%& '() at '" in this area) The 1 2 pie#e of #on#rete #l+ert lai" !$ the si"e of the p!li# "rain "oes not see* to !e fro* an$ part of the "rain, as no part of the p!li# "rain see*s to !e "istr!e") =t loo/s *ore li/e an alien o!e#t in the srron"ing en+iron*ent, an" !$ its "i*inti+e siIe it #ol" not ha" #ase" an$ "etri*ental effe#t to the flow of the water in the "rain) =n fa#t, the photographs show the p!li# "rain on this part of the lan" to ha+e a #ontinos, ninterrpte" rn) ro* these, the #on#lsion the #ort a rri+es at is that there #ol" not ha+e !een an$ !lo#/age of the "rain in the *anner allege" !$ the first plaintiff) The thir" "efen"ant ha" a wi"e open area in Lot 3''9 to store their eip*ent an" waste, an" there is no ne#essit$ to "*p nwante" *aterials into this se#tion of the lan") The thir" allegation is the e#a+ate" tren#h near Lot 3''9 for the fon"ation of a retaining wall !etween Lot 3''9 an" Lot 3''<) ##or"ing to the first plaintiff, this tren#h ha" #olle#te" rainwater, an" a *easre*ent !$ hi* ta/en with the ai" of a sti#/ st a few "a$s !efore the #ollapse of his hose was three feet "eep) :$ pre arith*eti# #al#lation, this wor/s ot to !e 1,<'' #!i# feet of water) The retention of this water, a##or"ing to r @a*li, &allows the water to seep into the gron" easier fro* the !ase of the e#a+ation) This will #ontri!te to the in#rease in the infiltration rate&)
Page 17
The thir" "efen"ant thogh a"*itting to the eisten#e of this tren#h eplain that a one in#h lean #e*ent ha" !een lai" at its !ase when the plaintiffs& hose #ollapse", an" at *ost, if there was an$ #olle#tion of rainwater therein, it wol" onl$ seep throgh the si"es an" not its !otto*) =n an$ e+ent, if this "i" happen, it wol" ha+e filtere" to the gron" an" ot onto the p!li# "rain whi#h was #lose !$) rther, the thir" "efen"ant asserts that whene+er there was an$ water in the tren#h, it was i**e"iatel$ etra#te" !$ a p*p) on#ern was a lso raise" !$ the thir" "efen"ant that r @a*li "i" not #arr$ ot an$ tests to "eter*ine the ea#t a*ont of water in this tren#h that wol" seep into the gron" an" infiltrate onto Lot 3''7, or whether it "i" infiltrate into Lot 3''7 at all) This tren#h was in"ee" a for*i"a!le e#a+ation) =f e+er water was #olle#te" therein, it wol" "efinitel$ for* an a##*late" *ess) =f allowe" to sin/ into the gron", it wol" not onl$ !e in #on#entrate" for* !t wol" also infiltrate "ire#tl$, e#essi+el$ an" rapi"l$ into the soil an" at a *#h "eeper le+el) M#h of this wol" e+entall$ es#ape to Lot 3''7 sin#e water !$ for#e of gra+it$ will flow fro* higher gron" to the lower area) ?f #orse, the infiltration of the water wol" also "epen" on the #onstittion of the tren#h) =f it is epose" withot the lean one in#h thi#/ #on#rete at its !ase then the epose" soil wol" a!sor! the water at a g reater rate an" intensit$) Aith a lean #on#rete !ase, the a!sorption, as a"*itte" !$ the thir" "efen"ant&s witness, wol" onl$ !e throgh its si"es) The first plaintiff testifies that this tren#h was entirel$ earthen while the "efen"ants #ontra"i#t it !$ stating that the lean #on#rete ha" !een lai" when the hose #ollapse") 8i"ing with the first plaintiff, r @a*li testifies that when he +isite" the site after the #ollapse of the hose, he #ol", &see so*e earthen !ase& in the tren#h when he #he#/e" it) The #ort ten"s to a##ept this as a fa#t, for there is no reason for r @a*li to !e ntrthfl !!" # $%& '() at '" as to fa#ts) Thogh he was #alle" !$ the plaintiffs to testif$, his assign*ent to in+estigate into the #ase of the #ollapse" hose is in"epen"ent) rther, he was at the site soon after the #ollapse an" things he saw *ost wol" pro!a!l$ represent things as the$ were !efore the #ollapse) Ahen the tren#h was earthen, it was withot the lean #on#rete, an" in this epose" state, it wol" a##elerate the infiltration of the *ass of water a##*late" therein to the gron" fro* all its si"es) Aith s#h a s!stantial +ol*e of water, going !$ the esti*ate #al#late" !$ the first plaintiff, it wol" "efinitel$ !e a #ontri!ting fa#tor for the slope failre when it infiltrate" into the soil) s for the thir" "efen"ant&s assertion that an$ rainwater #olle#te" therein will !e p*pe" ot, the #ort fin"s this e#se as an afterthoght) The first plaintiff ha" personall$ *easre" the water a few "a$s !efore the #ollapse an" this aspe#t of the e+i"en#e is not #ontra"i#te") =f this *easre*ent #ol" !e ta/en, the water *st ha" re*aine" there an" not p*pe" ot i**e"iatel$ as #lai*e") The last allegation of the plaintiffs against the thir" "efen"ant #enters on the trans+erse "rains that stoppe" short of the ri+er) Aater #arrie" in these "rains was "is#harge" to the lower slope of Lot 3''<) =t wol" then tra+el "own to the ri+er throgh natrall$ for*e" earth "rains) The eplanation offere" !$ the thir" "efen"ant for not eten"ing s#h "rains to the ri+er was !e#ase the !on"ar$ of Lot 3''< stoppe" short of the ri+er, an" an$ #onstr#tion lea"ing to the ri+er wol" trespass onto go+ern*ent lan") Aithot the nee" of an$ eperts, this approa#h is #ertainl$ "efe#ti+e for the lower part of this slope will !e left +lnera!le to erosion) The water #on#entrate" fro* the trans+erse "rains s""enl$ "is#harge onto an earthen part will +er$ li/el$ #ase an erosion on this part of the lan") Ahen this part of the lan" whi#h spports the soil of the a!o+e portion fails, the slope will #o*e t*!ling "own) ro* the photographs ta/en after the #ollapse" of the plaintiffs& hose, etensi+e soil erosion "i" in"ee" o##r on the lower slope of Lot 3''<) The natre of the erosion see*s to !e in the for* of a "rag *o+e*ent, an" this is a pro!a!le #ontri!ting fa#tor to the failre of the slope on Lot 3''7 lea"ing to the #ollapse of the plaintiffs& hose) The #ase of a#tion against the thir" "efen"ant is !ase" on nisan#e, negligen#e an" the rle of *ylands + ,letcher ) s for lia!ilit$ in respe#t of water, it is !est state" in Clerk 3 %indsell on Torts %13th D"( at p <51 %para 149<(, of whi#h was a"opte" !$ the e"eral ort in 5eong ,att 5awmills 5dn Bhd + .unlop $alaysia Industries 5dn Bhd [19<4] 1 MLJ 2<6) =t rea"s as follows %at p 2<9.(0 Lia!ilit$ in respe#t of water "epen"s on whether the water is natrall$ on the lan" or whether it is artifi#iall$ a##*late" or interfere" with in so*e wa$) The owner of lan" on a lower le+el #annot #o*plain of water natrall$ flowing or per#olating to his lan" fro* a higher le+el) Ce+ertheless, the higher proprietor is lia!le if he " eli!eratel$ "rains his lan" onto his lower neigh!or&s lan" an" this appears to !e so if the water is #ase" to flow in a *ore
Page 1<
#on#entrate" for* than it natrall$ wol", as the reslt of artifi#ial alterations in the le+els an" #ontors of the higher lan")
!!" # $%& '() at '"; Ahen water appears pon the srfa#e of the lan" in a "iffse" state, with no reglar #orse, an" then "isappears !$ per#olation or e+aporation, Ain"er$er J in an stralian #ase of >artner + 7idman [1962] L@ 62' has this to a""0 The higher proprietor0 Be is not lia!le *erel$ !e#ase srfa#e water flows natrall$ fro* his lan" on to lower lan") Be *a$ !e lia!le if s#h water is #ase" to flow in a *ore #on#entrate" for* than it natrall$ wol") =t flows in a *ore #on#entrate" for* that it natrall$ wol" if, !$ the "is#erni!le wor/ of *an, the le+els or #onfor*ations of lan" ha+e !een altere" an" as a reslt, the flow of srfa#e water is in#rease" at an$ parti#lar point) =f a *ore #on#entrate" flow o##rs si*pl$ as the reslt of the &natral& se of his lan" !$ the higher proprietor, he is, generall$ spea/ing, not lia!le) Ahat is a natral se is a estion to !e "eter*ine" reasona!l$ ha+ing regar" to all the #ir#*stan#es, in#l"ing the prpose for whi#h the lan" is !eing se" an" the *anner in whi#h the flow of water was in#rease"0 as for ea*ple whether it is agri#ltral lan" #leare" for graIing, whether it is a *ining tene*ent, or is se" for !il"ings an" so forth)
=n this #ase, the thir" "efen"ant ha" artifi#iall$ a##*late" the rainwater with the e#a+ation whi#h was an alteration to the natre of the lan") The$ ha" also interfere" with the rainwater !$ #onstr#ting trans+erse "rains en"ing three arter wa$ "o wn the slope of Lot 3''<) ll these ha" affe#te" the natral flow of the water reslting in its #on#entrate" an" in#rease" infiltration into the lan" there!$ #asing "estr#ti+e effe#t to Lot 3''7) :$ s#h "ee"s, the thir" "efen"ant ha+e !rea#he" their "t$ of #are towar"s the plaintiffs in respe#t of negligen#e, #ase" nisan#e to the plaintiffs, as well as !eing lia!le in part n"er the rle of *ylands + ,letcher .
Thogh the thir" "efen"ant "i" #lai* #ontri!tor$ negligen#e fro* the plaintiffs, fro* the e+i"en#e so ten"ere", the #ort fin"s no spport for it) The plaintiffs ha+e !ilt a hose a##or"ing to plans a"+ise", "rawn an" "esigne" !$ the first an">or forth "efen"ants) The$ ha+e e+en ta/en pre#ationar$ steps to pla#e piles along their slopes an" san" !ags at toe of !oth Lot 3''< an" Lot 3''7) The$ ha" also a"+ise" the thir" "efen"ant to ta/e pre#ationar$ *easres in their #onstr#tion on Lot 3''<) These were positi+e a#tions whi#h #annot !e interprete" as ha+ing #ontri!te" to the thir" "efen"ant&s negligen#e) s the #ort has fon" the first an">or forth "efen"ants lia!le to the plaintiffs, the apportione" of lia!ilit$ !etween the "efen"ants shall !e a s follows0 first an">or forth "efen"ants to !e 6' lia!le with thir" "efen"ant responsi!le for the !alan#e of 4') s ant* has !een agree" pon, it shall !e apportione" a##or"ing to this lia!ilit$ so fon") There shall also !e #osts to the plaintiffs !$ the "efen"ants) 4rder accordinglyD
@eporte" !$ harles Jai/*ar
