Case analysis

1. ABDUL AZIZ BIN AWANG
@ Muhammad & ors v
tenaga nasional bhd
Presented by:
CHONG XIAO XUAN
IMAN ALISYA
AMALIA SULAIMAN
FATIHAH AROF
ANIRA PETER
@UKM LAW SCHOOL 2020

2. 1.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Let’s start!
2

3. FACTS OF THE CASE
3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

8. 2. ISSUESBrought to the court
8

9. ISSUE OF TORT LAW
1. Whether D’s
action in
conducting the
3 releases of
water from the
SABD was a
correct decision
which could not
be avoided
2. Whether there was
any negligent on D’s
part in handling the
releases of water
from the SABD
4. Whether D had taken
all the necessary
measures to maintain
the SABD and Cameron
Highlands Hydroelectric
Scheme to ensure the
safety of the dam, the
people and properties
particularly at Bertam
Valley
9
3. Whether the
principle in Rylands
v Fletcher and res
ipsa loquitor were
applicable

10. Hazardous
Non-natural
use of land
10
Foreseeability
of damage
Accumulation
/ intentional
storage
Escape &
causes
mischief

11. Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai and others v State of Gujerat & Others
[2016]
who has brought something on his own property which has not been
naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own
property, but which he knows to the mischievous if it gets on his
neighbour's should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if
he does not succeed in confining it to his own property.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape.
11

12. Powell v Fall (1880)
If a person uses a traction engine which emits sparks in spite of all
precautions being taken to prevent their emission, he will be liable if
another person’s hayrick be set on fire by the sparks, upon the ground
that such an engine is a dangerous machine.
Musgrove v Pandelis [1919]
If a man brings on to his premise a dangerous thing which is liable to
cause fire, such as a motor car with petrol in it, the carburettor of which
is not unlikely to get on fire when the engine is started, and a fire results,
though without any negligence on his part, he must be held liable
12

13. Doherty v Allen [1987]
The occupier of land who brings and keeps upon it anything likely to do
damage if it escapes is bound at his peril to prevent its escape, and is liable
for all the direct consequences of its escape, even if he has been guilty of no
negligence
Abdul Rahman bin Che Ngah & Ors v Puteh bin Samat [1978]
In the alternative, even if negligence was not proved, in my view the
defendant was still liable under Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of the fire
resulting from an unnatural user of the land.
13

14. × Accumulation
water that was kept in the Sultan Abu Bakar Dam (SABD) for the purpose
of Genting Highlands Hydroelectric Scheme.
× Dangerous thing
high pressure of the water flowing through the valves when not released
according to inflow and outflow measurement
× A non-natural use of land
the dam was built for the main purpose of Genting Highlands Hydroelectric
Scheme, which was not a natural use of land but was kept at the premise
by and under the defendant’s peril.
14

15. × Escape
failure by respondents to ensure the flow of water which caused flood
× Foreseeability of damage
experts operating a dam, not having the water inflow measurement
gauge and not cleaning the sediment. Failed to maintain the SABD and
water level of dam taking into account it was a monsoon season. Thereby
they should have known that there is a foreseeability of damage to be
caused
15

16. 16
Res ipsa loquitor
the thing speaks for itself/ a
person whom has
exclusive control of whatever
caused the injury even
though there is no specific
evidence of an act of negligence
and without negligence the
accident would not have
happened

17. PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiff : Abdul Aziz bin Awang @
Muhammad & Ors v Tenaga
Nasional Bhd
17

18. SUBMISSIONS: Negligent on the part of defendant
1. Failure of D to
have the water
inflow
measurement
instrument to
measure the
inflow of water to
the SABD
2. Failure of D to
monitor closely
the water level at
SABD
3. Failure of D to
take necessary
action to release
water to JOR
station which will
reduce the water
level at SABD
18

19. 1. D has failed to conduct
dredging and clearing of
sediments on a regular
basis causing the
INCREASE of water
storage in the reservoir
& AVOID CONTROLLED
SPILLING which CAUSED
THE FLOODS.
MAINTENANCE OF SULTAN ABU BAKAR DAM (SABD)
2. D has failed to maintain
& ensure that BIS does
NOT GET CHOCKED, in
which it CHOCKED
resulting to 4 TURBINES
NOT FUNCTIONING and
CAUSED INCREMENT of
SABD WATER LEVEL
19

20. Plaintiff also pleaded for
the principle in ryland v
fletcher & res ipsa
loquitor to be applicable in
this case.

21. DEFENDANT’S
Defendant : Tenaga Nasional Bhd
21

22. SUBMISSIONS: THE 3 RELEASES OF WATER WAS A
CORRECT & JUSTIFIED DECISION
Reasoning:
To avoid the spillway gates to automatically open which
will cause massive floods to Bertam Valley and
consequently will cause widespread destruction to
properties and loss of lives.
22

23. All necessary safety measures and actions in
maintaining the Sultan Abu Bakar Dam (SABD) and the
Bertam Intake Screen (BIS) had been taken.
HOW?
By regular desilting and dredging work and cleaning of
the BIS throughout the years.
23

24. 24
Dam Desilting:
Desilting the dam is
important as silt will protect
the water supply from
becoming contaminated and
reduces evaporation while
increasing water volume in
the dam.
Dredging: clear the bed
of water by scooping out
mud, weeds, and
rubbish with a dredge.

25. 25 Source: ©hendrickcorp
Intake Screen:
Is used in screening out any debris such
as algae, sticks, leaves, litter and aquatic
life such as fish.

26. 26
Continued act of deforestation, intensive
agricultural activities and disposal of
rubbish upstream has affected the water
holding capacity of the reservoir as it
increased the sedimentation and solid
waste in the reservoir. It also caused
chockage (blockage) at the Bertam Intake
Screen.

27. FINDINGS OF
THE COURT
27

28. ISSUE OF NEGLIGENT
1. D failed to have a water inflow
measurement instrument
• Only be installed after the said
incident on 23/10/13
• Importance to know the water
inflow + will assist the
employees at SABD to decide
the amount of water to be
released
• Basically, to justify the release of
water
28
3. Executing the releases of water on
23/10/13
• The danger to release waters
which would cause floods was
acknowledged by Defendant since
2011 when his officers wrote
article about it
2. D failed to maintain the SABD and
appropriate water level of the dam
(monsoon season)
• Defendant was supposed to conduct
a large scale of dredging and
desilting regularly irrespective of
cost incurred since it involved lives

29. 1. Principle of Ryland v Fletcher (1868)
LR 3 HL 330 is applicable
• SABD is owned and maintained by
Defendant
• On 23/10/13 Defendant had released
water for the dam
• The release has caused floods and
destruction to properties + loss of
lives @ Bertam Valley
29
2. There was element of
‘escape’
• There was intentional act of
controlled spilling and it’s
more serious than
unintentional escape of water
from the dam
3. Res Ipsa Liquitor is applicable
• Failed to conduct proper
measure
• Failed to have inflow
measurement gauge

30. × Plaintiff has managed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities +
Defendant was liable for the floods that caused destruction to Plaintiff’s
properties & loss of lives
Points to ponder:
-In strict liability case, Plaintiff needs to prove on the ‘balance of probabilities’
-To prove there’s a strict liability on Defendant’s part, there must be an ‘escape’
-Defendant has to prove he had taken all the necessary steps to maintain the
dam
-Failure on the part of Defendant to own a such important device (eg : water
inflow measurement instrument) could be fatal to his case
30

31. THANKS!Any questions?
31