Case analysis

1. CASE ANALYSIS:
THIRUVANNAMALI ALAGIRISAMI PILLAI
LWN. DINERS CLUB (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
[2006] 8 CLJ 671
PREPARED BY:
AMALIA SULAIMAN
@UKM LAW SCHOOL 2019
‘NERVOUS SHOCK’

2. 1. NERVOUS SHOCK
What is nervous shock?
2

3. WHAT IS NERVOUS SHOCK?
▹ Duhaime's Law Dictionary:
A recognizable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of
duty.
▹ Nurchaya Talib, Law of Torts in Malaysia:
‘Nervous shock’- or preferred expression now is
‘psychiatric illness’. Psychiatric illness may occur either
as a result of a deliberate act which is intentional in
nature, or from negligence.
▹ Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
[1991] All ER 907
Psychiatric illness includes all forms of mental illness,
neurosis and personality change that are medically
recognized.
3

4. THIRUVANNAMALI ALAGIRISAMI PILLAI
LWN. DINERS CLUB (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
[2006] 8 CLJ 671
Court: High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
Judge: Wan Adnan Muhamad
4

5. Plaintiff
Full name:
Thiruvannamali
Alagirisami Pillai
Status: Diners Club
credit card member,
Doctor, Husband, Father
BACKGROUND FACTS
Defendant
Full name: Diners Club
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Status: Credit card
company
5

6. FACT OF CASE
▹ Plaintiff who is a medical doctor claimed damages for shock, fear and
mental distress as a result of the defendant's action for sending a letter
of condolences to his wife about his death while he when in fact he is
still alive and breathing. The facts indicate that the claim was denied by
the Senior Assistant Registrar on the grounds that it did not disclose any
cause of action. The plaintiff however appealed and argued that he did
indeed experience 'shock', 'fear' and 'anguish' upon being informed by
the wife of the letter of condolences, and that the defendant's conduct
could be charged under a tort wrong.
6

7. ”
2. ISSUE: Whether the defendant's
actions constitute to an 'actionable
tort'?
7
‘actionable tort’: A wrongful act or omission capable
as serving as the basis for a lawsuit.

8. 3. RULE OF LAW

9. RULE OF LAW
Page v. Smith [1996] 1AC 155, the House of Lords ruled as follows (in original) on
page 167:
▹ ‘it is necessary to understand what is meant by “nervous shock” that may result
in liability for damages. The decided cases indicate that it means a reaction to an
immediate and horrifying impact, resulting in some recognizable psychiatric illness.
There must be some serious mental disturbance outside the range of normal
human experience, not merely the ordinary emotions of anxiety, grief or fear.’
▹ ‘A defendant who is under a duty of care to the plaintiff, whatever as primary or
secondary victim, is not liable for damages for nervous shock unless the shock
results in some recognized psychiatric illness’
9

10. RULE OF LAW
Alcork & Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310
ruled as follows:
▹ Even though nervous shock and the subsequent psychiatric illness could be
reasonably foreseen, it has been generally accepted the damages for merely
being informed of, or reading, or hearing about the accident are not recoverable
… Certainly Brennan J in his judgment in Jaensch v. Coffey, 155 CLR 549, 57
recognised:
▹ A psychiatric illness induced by mere knowledge of a distressing fact is not
compensable; perception by the plaintiff of the distressing phenomenon is
essential
▹ ... Mere mental suffering, although reasonably foreseeable, if unaccompanied by
physical injury, is not a basis for a claim for damages.
10

11. 4. APPLICATION

12. APPLICATION
▹ It is clear from the plaintiff's claim that he did not disclose the cause
of action. The shock, fear and depression that the plaintiff
experienced was not the sole cause of action against the defendant.
Even the angry, shocking non-nervous shock leading to 'psychiatric
illness' does not make the defendant liable to the plaintiff. It is clear
that plaintiff did not elaborate on 'nervous shock' and 'psychiatric
illness.' All that is plead was 'shock', 'fear' and 'mental anguish.'
12

13. 5. HELD

14. IT WAS HELD THAT…
▹ WAN ADNAN MUHAMAD J: Appealed was dismissed on the grounds that what
have happened to the plaintiff was not an 'actionable tort'. Plaintiff has no
reasonable motive for what he says, that he is in shock, fear and mental anguish
is actually a feeling of dissatisfaction or anger with the letter of condolences
because he is alive. Also, as a doctor, plaintiff has ought to have extensive
experience in dealing with situations that are worse than this. There may be
anger and dissatisfaction on the part of the plaintiff but it is not an 'actionable
tort' that can be compensated with damages. In addition, the plaintiff did not
say he had 'nervous shock' which caused 'psychiatric illness'. All he said was
that he had 'shock' and 'mental anguish'. Therefore, the defendant cannot be
held liable.
14

15. 15
THANKS!
Any questions?