2. LEARNING OUTCOMES
• To be able to identify the types of causation
• To be able to explain the tests for causation
and the particular problems
• To be able to apply the tests for causation to
problem questions
2
3. READING
• Ahnaf Azmi, Norchaya Talib on Torts in
Malaysia, (Sweet & Maxwell Asia 2021),
Chapter 8
• Wan Azlan Ahmad & Mohsin Hingun,
Malaysian Tort Law, (Sweet & Maxwell Asia
2019), Chapter 8, 10
3
4. General
• Causation in law = remoteness of damage
• 2 tests:
a. Direct consequences test
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy &
Co. Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560;
b. Reasonable foresight test
The Wagon Mound case [1961] 1 All
ER 404.
4
5. Direct consequences test
2 stages:
Is the damage is
foreseeable as a
consequence of the D’s
act
If yes, D liable for all
the direct
consequences of his
act even if
unforeseeable
5
6. Reasonable foresight test
• Test: whether a reasonable man in the
defendant’s position would foresee
the damage.
• Principles:
i. damage must be foreseeable as a
consequence of the D’s conduct.
ii. type of damage must be
foreseeable.
6
7. Reasonable foresight test (cont’)
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller
Steamship Co. Ltd, The Wagon Mound (No.
2) [1967] 1 AC 617
• Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin
Mahmud & Ors [1977] 2 MLJ 103
• Jaswant Singh v Central Electricity Board &
Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 272
7
8. Reasonable foresight test (cont’)
Factors
Foreseeability of
type of damage
Relevancy of the
extent of damage
Foreseeability of
the damage in the
circumstances
Damage more
extensive
Eggshell skull rule
Plaintiff’s
impecuniosity
Relevancy of
method damage is
caused
8
9. Reasonable foresight test:
Foreseeability of type of damage
• Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd. [1967] 1 All
ER 267
• Tremain v Pike [1969] 3 All ER 1303
• Crossley v Rawlinson [1981] 3 All ER 674
9
10. Reasonable foresight test:
Relevancy of extent of damage
• Foreseeability of the damage in the
circumstances
o Sivakumaran a/l Selvaraj & Ors v Yu Pan &
Anor [1995] 1 AMR 490
o Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd v BDH
Chemicals Ltd. [1971] 1 QB 88
10
11. Reasonable foresight test:
Relevancy of the extent of damage
• Eggshell skull rule
o Page v Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736.
o Brice v Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997
o Smith v Leech-Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB
405
o Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
o Azizi bin Amran v Hizzam bin Che Hassan
[2006] 4 AMR 381; [2006] 4 MLJ 555
o Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
11
12. Reasonable foresight test:
Relevancy of the extent of damage
• Eggshell personalities:
o Malcolm v Broadhurst [1970] 3 All ER 508
o Meah v McCreamer [1985] 1 All ER 367
• Suicide:
o Sivakumaran & Ors v Yu Pan & Anor [1995] 1 AMR 490
o Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd. [2008] 2 All ER 943
o Pigney v Pointers Transport Services Ltd. [1957] 2 All ER 807
• External & internal physical circumstances: Great Lakes Steamship
Co. v Maple Leaf Milling Co. 91924) 41 TLR 21.
12
14. Reasonable foresight test (cont’):
Relevancy of method damage is caused
• Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
• Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd. [1969] 2 All
ER 1006
• Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
[1964] 1 All ER 98
14
16. Intervening acts (cont’)
• Natural event
o Carslogie Steamship Co. Ltd. v Royal
Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292
16
17. Intervening acts (cont’)
• Third party
o Scott v Shepherd [1773] 2 Wm Bl 892
o The Oropesa [1943] 1 All ER 211
o Rouse v Squires [1973] QB 889
o Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349
o Billion Origin Sdn. Bhd. v Newbridge
Networks Sdn. Bhd. [2006] 6 MLJ 768
o Lamb v Camden Borough Council [1981] 2
All ER 408
o Ward v Cannock Chase District Council
[1985] 3 All ER 537
17
18. Intervening acts (cont’)
• The Plaintiff
o McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts
(Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1621
o Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and
Westminster Area Health Authority [1985]
QB 1012
o Ogwo v Taylor [1987] 3 All ER 961
18
20. Proof of Negligence
• Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes
[1959] 2 All ER 38
• Krishna Murthey & Anor v Law Lye Chua
[1992] 1 CLJ 684
• Section 101 EA 1950
• United Asian Bank Bhd v Tai Soon Heng
Construction Sdn. Bhd. [1993] 1 MLJ 182
20
21. Res Ipsa Loquitor
• Teoh Guat Looi v Ng Hong Guan [1998] 4
AMR 3815
2 questions:
1. How and when is the maxim applicable?
2. What is the effect of its application?
21
22. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
Questions
How & when?
Scott v London and St.
Katherine Docks Co.
[1865] 2 H & C 596
Control Damage is not ordinary Unknown cause
Effect
22
23. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
• Control
o McGowan v Stott (1930) 143 LT 217
o Gee v Metropolitan Ry [1873] LR 8 QB 161
o Easson v LNE Ry Co. [1944] KB 421
o Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 WLR
749
o Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd. [1976] 1 All ER 219
o Teoh Guat Looi v Ng Hong Guan [1998] 4 AMR
3815 23
24. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
• Control
o Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574
o Mahon v Osborne [1939] 1 All ER 535
o Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 All ER 131
o Cook v Lewis [1952] 1 DLR 1
o Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Co-operative
Society Ltd. [1953] 1 WLR 1472
o Walsh v Hoist & Co Ltd. [1958] 3 All ER 33 24
25. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
• Damage is not ordinary
o Byrne v Boadle [1863] 2 H & C 722
o
o Sochacki v Sas [1947] 1 All ER 344
o Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB
343
25
26. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
• Unknown cause
o Barkway v South Wales Transport Co. Ltd.
[1950] 1 All ER 392
o Noor Famiza bte Zabri & Anor v Awang bin
Muda & Anor [1994] 1 AMR 679
26
27. Res Ipsa Loquitor (cont’)
• Effect:
oNational Chemsearch Corpn (SEA) Pte
Ltd & Anor v Hotel Ambassador
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [1975] 2 MLJ 193,
FC
oWong Choon Mei & Anor v Dr Kuldeep
Singh & Anor [1985] 2 MLJ 373
oNg Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988]
RTR 298
27
