Tort 25/11/2019 (only discuss most 3 / 4 issues)

Issues- should know who the plaintiff and the defendant are and under what law.

 whether the community living in that particular can sue Klue Sdn. Bhd. under public
nuisance.
 Whether Mala can bring an action towards Klue Sdn. Bhd. under private nuisance.
(have to mention what type of tort that you would like to sue under)
 Whether Mala can bring an action towards Klue Sdn. Bhd. under civil proceedings
with special damage. (whether it is extremely serious?) (consider whether oor not
the outbreak of dengue, common, every now and then) -should be under private
nuisance.
 If they want to bring under public, they have to get to AG,
 When you are the local counsel (bandar petaling jaya etc) you can bring a legal
action under public nuisance without getting permission under AG (can bring an
action under public)
 Bring under public nuisance with special damage (bring an action under public)
 Having two issues;
a) azhar bala and tan bring it under private nuisance (only talk under 3 people)
b) mala (private nuisance)

Law- nuisance,

Application- applying the law (discomfort)

PRIVATE NUISANCE

Once you listed down the issues, then you start answering or discussing issue number 1,
the first thing you have to talk about is you define the law.

What is private nuisance?

An unlawful, substantial and unreasonable interference with a person’s use, comfort,

enjoyment and any interest that a person may have over his land. (explain what kind of
interference, situation or circumstances with regard to interference, interference that was
suffered or give some bad impart for comfort and enjoyment of the plaintiff)

Only the person who has a possessory interest in the land can sue:

i) landowner

ii) occupier (Mala)

iii) A person who possesses a reversion

spouse or children of the occupier, guests, lodgers or workers have NO entitlement to

sue. (it is not the plaintiff who is suffering) -depends of how old the children (maybe can
sue on behalf of the children if it affects them)

i). creator: steven Phoa Chen Loon

ii) occupier

iii) landowner/ landlord:

a) when he has authorised

the requirement to be proved under private nuisance

plaintiff must prove he has suffered the damage although the damage itself, the law did
not mention damage as one of the elements (substantial, unreasonable) but yet akibatnya
mesti ada damage melalui substantial interference
3 types of interference:

1. interference (encroachment) with the use of land

2. interference with the comfort or enjoyment of land e.g. dust, noise pollution

3. physical damage (masuk hospital, sakit)

As long as you have all of the types or either one you can bring an action against the
defendant under private nuisance.

SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE

Interference with the enjoyment of land

Known as amenity nuisance

Feeling discomfort

No formula

Case by case basis

Woon Tan Kan & Ors v Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd Dato’ Dr Harnam Singh v Renal Link
(KL) Sdn Bhd. (named Tanah Merah near Ipoh)
Unreasonable interference 26/11/2019

Nuisance is established when there is unreasonable interference measured by balancing

the rights and interests of both parties= compromise

i) Defendant has the right to use and enjoyment of his land

ii) plaintiff has the right to the undisturbed enjoyment of his property (there is a balance
between the plaintiff and the defendant’s right)

test; what is accepted as reasonable according to the ordinary use of the land of others
living in that particular society (people living next to each other, within the area in terms
of noise pollution, smell pollution) within the locality

 Sykt Perniagaan Selangor v Fahro Rozi Mohdi [1981]

Perayu ialah syarikat perniagaan Selangor sdn bhd, kes ini masuk sehingga ke
CoA, pada awalnya telah berjanji untuk mrnggunskan kawasan perumahannya
untuk restaurant, panggung wayang dan peluncur. Perayu membina pentas atas
tanah tersebut dan membuat konsert. Perayu juga mengusahakan disko di sana.
Mahkamah memutuskan penduduk di kawasan bandar mestilah bersedia tolerate
untuk menghadapi bunyi bunyi bising dengan jiran mereka dan mereka juga can
make noise and everyone can make noise; dengan interference tersebut. (it is
reasonable to have this kind of noisy environment, hence perayu Berjaya dalam
rayuan tersebut)
-Nobody is subjected to unreasonable noise, apa yang berlaku circumstances,
gangguan tersebut ialah munasabah, tidak ada sesiapa pun yang perlu atau
menahan bunyi yang tidak munasabah, kawasan bandar; tidak meninbulkan satu
kacau ganggu pihak perayu was not liable under nuisance
 Baxter v Camden London BC (1999)
Explain about the unreasonableness (people who lives within the area) even in the
same country if you lived in city you have to tolerate with the noise but if you live
at the resorted area, the level of noise might be different within the area compared
to the one who lives in city
Plaintiff must also prove

1. damage and location of the premise (to what extent is the damage substantiality of the
damage under this, you can bring, and the locality of the area)

 Bliss v Hall

Dalam kes ini the defendant telah menguruskan sebuah kilang selama 3 tahun
sepnajang itu kilang itu mengeluarkan asap dan barang barang lain. plaintiff baru
sahja pindah dan telah mengambil tindakan. Def berhujah bahwa kilang itu telah
beroperasi itu sebelum plaintiff tinggal di sana

The court held that, hujah yang dinyatakan oleh defendant ialah tidak valid hal ini
demikian kerana plaintiff also has the right too: udara bersih dan persekitaran yang
tenteram.

 Batang jaki Estates Sdn Bhd

2. Public benefit of Defendant’s activities (it still can be considered as nuisance to others)

 Adams v Ursell
Ursell Menjalankan perniagaan ikan kering dankedainya terletak di kawasan
perumahan apabila aktivitinya di bawah ke mahkamah. Def alleged that her activity
mendatangkan faedah kepada kawasan masyarakat tersebut terutama kepada
orang miskin yang tidak mampu membeli meat dan hanya mampu membeli ikan
kering. However, to other people, the smell of ikan kering is disturbing. Mahkamah
memutuskan bahawa defendant was held to be liable because the hujah is not
strong. The activity of selling something that is very smelly and as a result creating
discomfort to people especiallty to the olaintiff was not reasonable kerana
gangguan itu melebihi dari faedah yang diterima oleh sebahagian masyarakat.
 Kennaway v Thompson
The management of the flat built government clinic. Longkang longkang tersumbat
dan bunyi bunyi bsiing, perngubahsuain unit juga itu telah menyebabkan
kesusahan kepada penginap di pangsa tersebut seperti pecah masuk and stuff.
Mahkamah menolak hujahan plaintiff yang mengatakan bahawa pertimbangan
 haruslah dibawa pada kawasan perumahan tersebut. Ini dilihat bahwan hanya
pada tempoh construction itu sahaja menyebabkan gangguan pada penduduk itu.
But in aa long run, it will benefit to the residence living in that area danbunyi bising
itu hanya menggangu pada masa construction sahaja. The defendant was not
liable.

3. extraordinary sensitivity (plaintiff) the sensitivity is too high compared to other people

This sensitivity was the one was on the part of the plaintiff. Th eplaintiff was the one who
having this issue

 McKinnon Industries Ltd v Walker

Def mengeluarkan gas beracun (kilang) dan gas itu masuk ke kawasan plaintiff
telah menyebabkan kerosakkan komersial bunga orkid yang diusahakan oleh
plaintiff. (bunga orkid tu extra sensitive not a common type of orchid) referring to
robinson v kilvert, it does not recognise plaintiff’s sensitivity. Court held that def
bertanggungan even though orkid itu mempunya sensitivity yang luar biasa, gas
beracun itu juga boleh merosakkan tanaman orkid jenis biasa. (did not look at extra
sensitivity). This factor does not fall under unreasonableness
 Robinson v Kilvert
Def telah mengusahakan perniagaan membuat kotak kotak kertas proses
permbuatan melibatkan udara panas, def tinggal di tingkat bawah sebuah
bangunan 3 tinggkat, sementara plaintiff tinggal di tingkat atas, pl mengusahakan
menjual kertas dan kertas kertas itu ialah kertas khas atau specific; kertas itu
menjual mengkikut sukatan berat. Udara panas naik ke tingkat atas. Dan bila
udara naik ke atas, kertas menjadi ringan, dan kering; hilan
gmelembabmenyebabkan kerugian kepada plaintiff as it measured the weight of
the paper. You need to have more and more papers. That’s why dia sue def. kes
dibawa ke mahkamah. Mahkamah tolak tunttuan plaintiff keran amendapati udara
panas yang dihasilkan oleh defe tidak mendatangkan maslaah kepada pekerja
plaintiff. Mahkamah berpendapat bahwa jika keadaan ini berlaku kepada
pengeluar kertas biasa, tidak ada complain tapi pl mengeluarkan kertas yang. The
court will not take into account about plaintiff’s sensitivity
  Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire electricity Board

2/12/2019

Factors determining reasonableness

-interference is continuous (24/7)

-in stages (only in the morning, vice versa)

4. Interference must be continuous

Although not conclusive but it is a factor in deciding substantially of the interference

This element is looking at the reasonableness (the effect suffered by the defendant,
whether it is real damage that damaging them)

IJM Corporation Bhd v Harta Kumpulan Sdn Bhd

The def who own the land, the plaintiff who construct the condominium

the demands from the def to the plaintiff, send up in letter almost every day and the
plaintiff took this seriously it was disturbing her daily routine, brought this case under
nuisance. The court found that deliberately harassing the plaintiff with letter, amounted to
interference in her daily life.

Motherwell v Motherwell

There was a deliberate telephone call was considered as actionable under nuisance and
the court agreed it was satisfied, the inconvenience and annoyingness suffered by the
plaintiff (whether it is about letters, or phone call, threatening the plaintiff, the court will
look upon to whether it is reasonable or not)

Stated that all this action if it is done deliberately and continuously it will fall under
unreasonableness.

5. temporary interference & isolated incident

-it must take all reasonable precautions

-it causes physical damage

-there are pre-existing dangers, foreseeable (boleh dijangka)

Spicer v Smee

Rumah plaintiff terletak sebelah di def, telah terbakar disebabkan pendawaian def yan
tidak sempurna (boleh dijangkakan) mahkamah memutuskan def bertanggungan kerana
wujud keadaan yang berbahaya di kawasan def yang boleh menyebabkan kerosakan
and kebakaran kepada rumah plaintiff. The court agreed that, it is unreasonable and
leading to substantial.

6. malice

Jika pihak plaintiff there was a malice from the def even the gangguan itu munasabah as
(the intention) then mahkamah akan mengambil kira as nuisance.

Christie v Davey

Plaintiff seorang guru music di rumah sendiri, def, rumah jiran sebelah hates music.
Sepanjang kelas music itu berlangsung. The def sangat marah and hilang kawalan
disebbakan itu, dia telah menjerit menjerit dan mengetuk dinding, ambil periuk and stuff.
Plaintiff bawa ke mahkamah yang menyeabkan kelas music nya terganggu. Mahkamah
hel that, there was malice disebalik tindakan def itu dan mahkamah mebernakan
injunction kepada plaintiff, def was held liable

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett

Plaintiff meusahkahn pertenakan musang, special fox. Yang amat sensitive ketika muka
musim membiak (tidak boleh bising). Def ada masalah dengan plaintiff dengan sengaja
melepaskan beberapa das tembakan pihak plaintiff mengalami tindakan kerana kerugian.
Mahkamah held that, def was liable sebab ada niat buruk, kerana niat buruk itu
menjadikan interference yang tidak munasabah.
Sekiranya ada sedikit gangguan tapi disertai dengan niat buruk, sudah memadai untuk
fall under nuisance.

It is not necessary all the factors to be fulfilled just use the most relevant factor. (discuss
whatever relevant)

If it is an essay question discuss 2 elements (have to explain the 6 factors)

Remedies

1. damages

Pf can recover for physical loss, depreciation

2. injunction

Defences

1. prescription (dalian preskripsi) nobody complaint for the last 20 years and suddenly
this person, moved in 2 months again, started to complain. Defendant mestilah
meniunjukkan bahawa gangguan itu, gangguan tindakan nuisance bole diambil for the
past 20 years tapi takde orang pun brought it to court.

It is only for private nuisance.

Pl and def jiran. Def pengusaha kilang cookies. Dan operasi nya mengeluarkan bising
dan gegaran interfered the plaintiff. The business has been continuously for the past 20
years. Tapi pihak pl tidak pernah mengambil tndakan. Pl ialah seorang doc and doc telah
menjadikan salah satu biliknya satu rawatan baru baru ini then brought clinic to his house
an dused of his rooms as treatment room dan disebabkan business clinicnya telah
membawa kes ke mahkamah yang mengusahakan kilang cookies, kacau ganggu dan
vibration mengganggunya dan pihak pesakit yang mendapat rwatan di rumahnya. The
court held that, dalihan prescription,

2. statutory authority

Woon tan kan v Asian rare earth sdn bhd

Manchester corporation v Farnworth

The def raise the defence of statutory authority by using Manchester act… case went to
house of lord, mendapati def telah gagal membuktikan yang mereka menggunakan
langkah berhati hati, yang munasabah untuk mengelakkan daripada operasi mereka
(walaupun dibenarkan under statute) pihak mahkamah menyatakan bahawa pihak def
telah liable diabwah kacau ganggu. Although this is a good defence, and been used in
this case, but yet it was brought to house of lords and was rejected, the provision was
valid but the def in exercising the duty of care was not satisfactory done in the view of the
court.

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining

Def telah menggunakan dalihan iaitu satu akta Guff Oil refining act yang dikeluarkan oleh
parliament. Akta tersebut mmeberi kuasa untuk membina dan mengusahakan kilang
minyak, dan imuniti kepada owner from held liable under nuisance. The defence was
accepted by the court

Woon tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd

The plaintiff residents of Bukit Merah village, sued the defendents, alleging that its
activities produced dangerous radioactive gases harmful to Bukit Merah residents.

The defendant’s

Statute tersebut hanya membernakan operasi, Bukannya membernakan keadan

keadaan yang merbahaya kepada penduduk setempat. And the defence was rejected
kerana ia bukanlah satu perkara yang memang kena buat atau di perintahkan oleh statute
tetapi sekadar satu aktiviti/ operasi yang telah mendapatkan kelulusan dari statute.

3. other defences;
Kalau held liable, the elements were satisfied kena jawab until defence. Jika tiada
defence yang sesuai, if the def is liable, the plaintiff will win the case. However, there is
no suitable defence that the defendna tcan bring towards to the court.