You are on page 1of 15

Page 1

Page 2

Malayan Law Journal Reports/2010/Volume 8/Chai Hoon Seong MLJ 10% " 2& Septem'er 200&

!ong Meng Heong " #2010$ 8

18 pages #2010$ 8 MLJ 10%

Chai Hoon Seong v Wong Meng Heong


HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) LAU BEE LAN J CIVIL APPEAL NO R ! !"#$ "$$% "& Se'(e)*e+ "$$& Civil Procedure -- Pleadings -- Issue not pleaded -- Defective pleadings -- Whether evidence adduced at trial would overcome defects in pleadings Civil Procedure -- Trial -- Order of speeches -- Whether magistrate could depart from order of speeches -- Whether speeches ought to be in written form -- Subordinate Courts Rules !"# O $" r % Civil Procedure -- Trial -- Witness -- &'pert witness prohibited from attending court before giving evidence -- Whether magistrate erred in ordering such prohibition &vidence -- (dverse inference -- )ailure to produce material evidence -- Whether adverse inference ought to be drawn -- &vidence (ct !*# s +,g&vidence -- &'pert evidence -- .ualifications of e'pert -- Whether lac/ of 0ualifications of e'pert affected weight or admissibilit1 of evidence &vidence -- Witness -- &'pert witness -- &'pert witness prohibited from attending court before giving evidence -- Whether magistrate erred in ordering such prohibition Professions -- 2edical practitioners -- 3egligence -- 3egligence of dentist -- Standard of care re0uired -- &'pert evidence4 assessment of Tort -- Damages -- (ssessment -- 2agistrate awarded damages based merel1 on pleaded damages without underta/ing assessment -- Whether magistrate erred Tort -- 3egligence -- Causation -- 5urden of proof -- Whether victim proved breach of dut1 b1 tortfeasor had caused victim reasonabl1 foreseeable damage " 267 #+ at #* Tort -- 3egligence -- Standard of care -- 3egligence of dentist -- Standard of care re0uired -&'pert evidence4 assessment of (he respon)ent 'rought a *laim against the appellant )entist +or negligen*e in respe*t o+ some )ental wor, -*rowning. *arrie) out on her right molar -/the tooth/.0 1t +irst instan*e2 the *laim was allowe)0 (he appellant appeale) to the High Court raising se eral groun)s o+ appeal0

Page 3

He,-2 allowing the appellant/s appeal an) )ismissing the respon)ent/s *laim4

1)

1)

1)

1)

1)

1)

1)

5n the instant *ase2 although the respon)ent ha) not plea)e) negligen*e in respe*t o+ some root *anal wor, *arrie) out on the tooth 'y a another )entist -6r Chow.2 there was no pre7u)i*e an) surprise *ause) to the appellant0 (he appellant/s *ounsel ha) in *ross"e8amination o+ the respon)ent pose) se eral 9uestions regar)ing the issue o+ the root *anal treatment0 (he *ase was one where the e i)en*e gi en at the trial woul) o er*ome the )e+e*ts in the plea)ings -see para 8.0 Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- v Sabedin bin Salleh #1&&3$ 1 MLJ 3&3 -SC. +ollowe): 7anagi v Ong 5oon 8iat #1&;1$ 2 MLJ 1&< re+erre)0 1n a) erse in+eren*e un)er s 11%-g. o+ the = i)en*e 1*t 1&>0 ought to ha e 'een )rawn against the respon)ent +or +ailure4 -i. to *all se eral witnesses: an) -ii. to pro)u*e a )ental report gi en to the respon)ent0 (he witnesses were material witnesses an) the report a material )o*ument -see paras &"10.0 2unusam1 v Public Prosecutor #1&8;$ 1 MLJ %&2 re+erre)0 (he magistrate ha) erre) in e8*lu)ing the appellant/s e8pert witness +rom *ourt 'e+ore the e8pert ga e e i)en*e -see para 13.0 Dr Soo )oo/ 2un v )oo )io 3a 9 (nor and another appeal #2001$ 2 MLJ 1&3 +ollowe): Tomlinson v Tomlinson #1&80$ 1 !LR 322 re+erre): :omeishu Sei;o Co 6td 9 Ors v Sinma 2edical Products ,2Sdn 5hd #1&&<$ 2 MLJ 33% re+erre)0 5n the instant *ase2 the magistrate ha) )eparte) +rom the or)er o+ spee*hes un)er ? 28 r 1<-%. o+ the Su'or)inate Courts Rules 1&80 -/SCR/. an) ha) gi en the appellant the a))itional opportunity o+ replying to the respon)ent/s reply"to" su'mission0 (his she was entitle) to )o un)er ? 28 r 1<-1. o+ the SCR0 ?r)er 28 r 1<-1. )oes not stipulate that the /spee*hes/ *annot 'e ma)e in written +orm2 whi*h the magistrate so or)ere) in the instant *ase0 (he magistrate *oul) not 'e sai) to ha e erre) in not hearing oral arguments in the instant *ase -see para 1&.0 (here was merit in the appellant/s *ontention that the magistrate ha) erre) in applying the stan)ar) o+ *are o+ a spe*ialist in en)o)onti*s2 instea) o+ the stan)ar) o+ *are e8pe*te) o+ a )ental pra*titioner in a pri ate )ental *lini* when the appellant was a general pra*titioner an) " 267 #+ at #% the +itting o+ *rowns *ame within the +iel) o+ prostho)onti*s -see para 20.0 8night 9 Ors v <ome Office 9 (nor #1&&0$ 3 1ll =R 23; re+erre): Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1 Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<1 re+erre)0 5n the instant *ase2 the appellant was a general pra*titioner in the +iel) o+ prostho)onti*s0 (he appellant/s e8pert was a spe*ialist an) ha) 'een pra*tising as a prostho)ontist sin*e 1&8% with long e8perien*e in en)o)onti*s0 (he respon)ent/s e8pert was an e8pert in en)o)onti*s0 Howe er2 she ha) no pri ate )ental pra*ti*e an) only o'taine) her 9uali+i*ations in 20000 @e ertheless2 the la*, o+ 9uali+i*ations or e8perien*e o+ an e8pert a++e*te) the weight o+ the e i)en*e rather than its a)missi'ility -see paras 22 A 2%"2>.0 7unaidi bin (bdullah v Public Prosecutor #1&&3$ 3 MLJ 21; +ollowe)0 5n the instant *ase2 what was material was whether the magistrate ha) analyse) an) a**or)e) the proper weight to the e i)en*e o+ the e8perts0 5n this regar) +ollowing the Roger/s test2 the magistrate ha) wrongly )e*i)e) on the weight o+ e i)en*e to 'e atta*he) to the respon)ent/s e8pert/s e i)en*e -6r RoBa.0 (he magistrate +aile) to *onsi)er that 6r RoBa ha) agree) to points in support o+ the appellant/s )e+en*e an) that she ha) agree) to material parts o+ the appellant/s e8pert/s e i)en*e -see paras 2< A 28"2&.0 Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1

Page % Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<1 +ollowe): 5olitho v Cit1 9 <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;1 re+erre): 6echemanavasagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11> -re+erre).: )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$ 1 MLJ >&3 +ollowe)0 !ith regar) to *ausation2 the respon)ent ha) +aile) to pro e that the 'rea*h o+ )uty 'y the appellant ha) *ause) reasona'ly +oreseea'le )amage -see para 3>.0 5olitho v Cit1 9 <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;1 re+erre): 6echemanasavagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11> re+erre): )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$ 1 MLJ >&3 re+erre)0 (he magistrate ha) erre) in +ailing to assess the )amages a+ter ma,ing a +in)ing on lia'ility0 (he magistrate ha) erre) in awar)ing the )amages as praye) +or 'y the respon)ent2 merely 'ase) on the plea)ings a+ter *onsi)ering the +a*ts o+ the *ase an) the respon)ent/s su++ering -see paras 3&"%0.0

1)

1)

Respon)en menuntut terha)ap perayu atas ,e*uaian 'eri,utan rawatan pergigian -,orona. yang )ila,u,an ,e atas gigi geraham ,anannya -/gigi " 267 #+ at #> terse'ut/.0 Pa)a mulanya2 tuntutan terse'ut )i'enar,an0 Perayu merayu ,e Mah,amah (inggi mem'ang,it,an 'e'erapa alasan rayuan0 .i'/(/01an2 mem'enar,an rayuan )an menola, tuntutan respon)en4

2)

2)

2)

2)

2)

6alam ,es ini2 walaupun respon)en ti)a, mempli) ,e*uaian )alam rawatan ,anal a,ar yang )i7alan,an ,e atas gigi terse'ut oleh )o,tor gigi yang lain -6r Chow.2 tia)a pre7u)is )an ,e7utan yang )ia,i'at,an ,epa)a perayu0 Peguam perayu )alam pemeri,saan 'alas respon)en mengutara,an 'e'erapa soalan 'er,aitan isu rawatan ,anal a,ar0 Ces ini merupa,an ,es )i mana ,eterangan yang )i'eri,an semasa per'i*araan a,an mengatasi ,e*a*atan )alam pli)ing -lihat perenggan 8.: Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- v Sabedin bin Salleh #1&&3$ 1 MLJ 3&3 -M1. )ii,ut: 7anagi v Ong 5oon 8iat #1&;1$ 2 MLJ 1&< )iru7u,0 Suatu in+erens yang menentang )i 'awah s 11%-g. 1,ta Ceterangan 1&>0 harus )isimpul,an terha)ap respon)en ,erana ,egagalannya4 -i. memanggil 'e'erapa sa,si: )an -ii. untu, mengemu,a,an laporan pergigian yang telah )i'eri,an ,epa)a respon)en0 Sa,si"sa,si merupa,an sa,si"sa,si penting )an laporan terse'ut merupa,an laporan yang penting -lihat perenggan &"10.: 2unusam1 v Public Prosecutor #1&8;$ 1 MLJ %&2 )iru7u,0 Ma7istret telah ,hila+ apa'ila mengeluar,an sa,si pa,ar perayu )ari mah,amah se'elum sa,si terse'ut mem'eri ,eterangannya -lihat perenggan 13.: Dr Soo )oo/ 2un v )oo )io 3a 9 (nor and another appeal #2001$ 2 MLJ 1&3 )ii,ut: Tomlinson v Tomlinson #1&80$ 1 !LR 322 )iru7u,: :omeishu Sei;o Co 6td 9 Ors v Sinma 2edical Products ,2- Sdn 5hd #1&&<$ 2 MLJ 33% )iru7u,0 6alam ,es ini2 ma7istret telah menyimpang )aripa)a tataterti' u*apan"u*apan )i 'awah 1 28 , 1<-%. Cae)ah"Cae)ah Mah,amah Ren)ah 1&80 -/CCMR/. )an telah mem'eri,an perayu peluang tam'ahan untu, mem'alas hu7ahan 'alas respon)en0 Per,ara ini 'oleh )ila,u,an oleh 'eliau )i 'awah 1 28 , 1<-1. CCMR0 1,ta 28 , 1<-1. ti)a, memperuntu,,an 'ahawa /u*apan"u*apan/ terse'ut ti)a, 'oleh )i'uat se*ara 'ertulis2 yang mana ma7istret telah memerintah,an se)emi,ian )alam ,es ini0 Ma7istret ti)a, 'oleh )i,ata,an telah ,hila+ )engan ti)a, men)engar hu7ahan lisan )alam ,es ini -lihat perenggan 1&.0 (er)apat merit )alam hu7ahan perayu 'ahawa ma7istret telah ,hila+ apa'ila menggunapa,ai stan)ar) 'er7aga"7aga seorang pa,ar en)o)onti,2 )an 'u,annya

Page > stan)ar) 'er7aga"7aga yang )i7ang,a,an oleh pengamal )o,tor pergigian )i ,lini, pergigian swasta ,erana perayu merupa,an pengamal am )an pema)anan ,orona a)alah )alam 'i)ang " 267 #+ at #" prosto)onti, -lihat perenggan 20.: 8night v <ome Office 9 (nor #1&&0$ 3 1ll =R 23; )iru7u,: Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1 Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<1 )iru7u,0 6alam ,es ini2 perayu merupa,an pengamal am )alam 'i)ang prosto)onti,0 Sa,si pa,ar perayu merupa,an seorang pa,ar )an telah 'eramal se'agai prosto)o,ti, se7a, tahun 1&8% )an mempunyai pengalaman yang men)alam )alam en)o)onti,0 Sa,si pa,ar respon)en merupa,an seorang pa,ar )alam 'i)ang en)o)onti,0 (etapi2 'eliau ti)a, mengamal )alam 'i)ang pergigian swasta )an hanya men)apat ,elaya,annya )alam tahun 20000 @amun2 ,etia)aan ,elaya,an )an pengalaman se'agai pa,ar mem'eri ,esan ,epa)a penilaian ,eterangan )an 'u,annya ,epa)a ,e'olehterimaannya -lihat perenggan 22 A 2%"2>.: 7unaidi bin (bdullah v Public Prosecutor #1&&3$ 3 MLJ 21; )ii,ut0 6alam ,es ini2 apa yang penting ialah sama a)a ma7istret telah menganalisa )an mem'eri,an penilaian yang 'etul ,e atas ,eterangan sa,si"sa,si pa,ar0 6alam hal ini2 menurut u7uan Roger2 ma7istret telah salah memutus,an penilaian ,eterangan sa,si pa,ar respon)en -6r RoBa.0 Ma7istret telah gagal mempertim'ang,an 'ahawa 6r RoBa 'ersetu7u menyo,ong pem'elaan perayu )an 'ahawa 'eliau 'ersetu7u )engan 'e'erapa 'ahagian penting ,eterangan sa,si pa,ar perayu -lihat perenggan < A 28"2&.: Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1 Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<1 )ii,ut: 5olitho v Cit1 9 <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;1 )iru7u,: 6echemanavasagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11> )iru7u,: )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$ 1 MLJ >&3 )ii,ut0 Der,aitan penye'a'2 respon)en gagal mem'u,ti,an 'ahawa pelanggaran ,ewa7ipan oleh perayu telah menye'a',an ,erosa,an 'oleh ramal -lihat perenggan 3>.: 5olitho v Cit1 9 <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;1 )iru7u,: 6echemanavasagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11> )iru7u,: )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$1 MLJ >&3 )iru7u,0 Ma7istret telah ,hila+ apa'ila gagal mena,sir ,erugian terse'ut setelah memutus,an lia'iliti0 Ma7istret telah ,hila+ )alam mengawar),an ganti rugi seperti yang )ipohon oleh respon)en2 hanya 'er)asar,an pli)ing setelah meneliti +a,ta"+a,ta ,es )an pen)eritaan respon)en -lihat perenggan 3&"%0.0

2)

2)

2)

2)

No(e0 Eor *ases on assessment2 see 12 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200> Reissue. paras 1>&"1>& " 267 #+ at Eor *ases on *ausation2 see 12 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200> Reissue. paras 8>1"8<& Eor *ases on e8pert witness2 see ;-1. 2allal?s Digest -%th =) 2010 Reissue. paras 280<"2810 Eor *ases on +ailure to pro)u*e material e i)en*e2 see ;-1. 2allal?s Digest -%th =) 2010 Reissue. paras 2%2"2%<0 Eor *ases on issue not plea)e)2 see 2-2. 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200; Reissue. paras >%%;" >%>10 Eor *ases on negligen*e o+ me)i*al pra*titioners2 see 10 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 2008 Reissue. paras 1<13"1<23 #!

Page < Eor *ases on 9uali+i*ations o+ e8pert e i)en*e2 see ;-1. 2allal?s Digest -%th =) 2010 Reissue. paras 1<20"1<2; Eor *ases on stan)ar) o+ *are2 see 12 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200> Reissue. paras 1>1;"1>1&0 Eor *ases on trial in general2 see 2-1. 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200; Reissue. paras ;812";&100 Eor *ases on witness2 see 2-1. 2allal?s Digest -%th =)2 200; Reissue. paras ;&02";&100 Ca0e0 +e2e++e- (o 5olitho ,administratri' of the estate of 5olitho ,deceased-- v Cit1 and <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;12 HL -re+). Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1 Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<12 HC -+oll). Dr Soo )oo/ 2un v )oo )io 3a 9 (nor and another appeal #2001$ 2 MLJ 1&32 C1 -+oll). )arrel v Secretar1 of State for Defence #1&80$ 1 1ll =R 1<<2 HL -re+). )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$ 1 MLJ >&3: #200;$ 1 CLJ 22&2 EC -+oll). 7anagi v Ong 5oon 8iat #1&;1$ 2 MLJ 1&<2 HC -re+). 7unaidi bin (bdullah v PP #1&&3$ 3 MLJ 21;2 SC -+oll). 8night 9 Ors v <ome Office 9 (nor #1&&0$ 3 1ll =R 23;2 FD6 -re+). 6echemanavasagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11>2 HC -re+). 2unusam1 v PP #1&8;$ 1 MLJ %&22 SC -re+). Rogers v Whita/er -1&&2. 1;> CLR %;&2 HC -+oll). Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- v Sabedin bin Salleh #1&&3$ 1 MLJ 3&32 SC -+oll). Tomlinson v Tomlinson #1&80$ 1 !LR 322 -re+). :omeishu Sei;o Co 6td 9 Ors v Sinma 2edical Products ,2- Sdn 5hd #1&&<$ 2 MLJ 33%2 HC -re+). Legi0,a(ion +e2e++e- (o = i)en*e 1*t 1&>0 ss %>-1.2 11%-g. Legal 1i) 1*t 1&;1 s 21-3.-*. " 267 #+ at Su'or)inate Courts Rules 1&80 ? 28 r 1<-1.2 -3.2 -%. PS Ran@an ,2anmohan S Dhillion with him- ,PS Ran@an 9 Co- for the appellantA (;man Ba/aria ,(hmad Daud 9 (ssociates- for the respondentA La/ Bee Lan JC 3 4 (his is an appeal against the )e*ision o+ the learne) magistrate gi en on 1 Septem'er 200> wherein she ha) allowe) with *osts the *laim o+ the respon)ent/plainti++ -/the respon)ent/. 'rought against the appellant/)e+en)ant -/the appellant/.0 #

Page ; 3"4 (he respon)ent2 !ong Meng Heong/s -+. *laim against the appellant2 6r Chai Hoon Seong2 a )entist was +or )amages +or RM13208>020 an) *osts purporte)ly *ause) 'y the negligen*e o+ the appellant0 (he respon)ent *laime) on 21 ?*to'er 1&&> she isite) the appellant/s *lini* to re*ei e treatment an) to *rown her right molar0 She allege) a+ter re*ei ing treatment she e8perien*e) pain an) su++ering )ue to the appellant/s negligen*e2 namely4

1a) 1b) 1c)

the tooth has lost the power to hol) +oo): losing the a'ility to *hew +oo): an) in+e*tion o+ the root o+ the tooth0

3#4 (he +urther an) 'etter parti*ulars gi en 'y the respon)ent pursuant to a *ourt or)er )ate) 1> Mar*h 200< +or +urther an) 'etter parti*ulars -para > o+ the statement o+ *laim. as to what a*tion that were ta,en or not ta,en 'y the appellant whi*h *onstitute) negligen*e are -pp 30"31 o+ the 1R.4

1) 1) 1) 1) 1)

Eaile) an) negle*te) to )o a proper *rowning on the Plainti++/s upper right molar0 Eaile) an) negle*te) in +itting the *ones o+ the Plainti++/s root tooth as it was e8ten)e) into the Plainti++/s tooth 'one0 @egligent in +itting the Plainti++/s *ones/ root tooth as one o+ it was too long an) *urle) into the Plainti++/s tooth 'one0 Ma)e a wrong )e*ision an) negligent in )oing a )eep s*aling a+ter the Plainti++/s *omplaint o+ pain whi*h *ause) Plainti++ su++ere) more pain an) trauma0 @egligent in ma,ing a proper *rown on the sai) teeth as it was higher +rom the rest o+ the tooth *ause) Plainti++ su++ere) pain an) ma)e her ha) no alternati e 'ut to *onsult the other )entist to *ure it0

" 267 #+ at 354 (he )e+en*e raise) 'y the appellant was 'e+ore the *rown was +itte) on the upper right +irst molar o+ the respon)ent2 the appellant ha) *he*,e) the *olour o+ the *rown2 the +it o+ the *rown margins2 the pro8imal *onta*ts with the a)7a*ent teeth an) the o**lusal *onta*ts with the opposing teeth: the respon)ent was gi en an opportunity to iew the *rown with a mirror 'e+ore it was permanently *emente): that the sai) *rown was not sitting on the root o+ the tooth an) *oul) not ha e e8ten)e) into the 'one o+ the tooth: the sai) *rown ha) a goo) +it an) that it was not possi'le +or it to ha e *urle) into the 'one o+ the tooth: the respon)ent was a) ise) an) agree) to un)ergo )eep s*aling un)er lo*al anaesthesia so as to remo e any pla9ue or tartar so that the gum woul) 'e +ree o+ 'a*terial in+e*tion: an) that when the *rown was +itte) the o**lusal *onta*ts with the opposing teeth were *are+ully *he*,e) an) the *rown was *emente) only when no high spot was e i)ent0 3%4 (he *ourt has *onsi)ere) the written s,eletal su'missions o+ 'oth learne) *ounsel +or the appellant -en*ls 3% an) 28. an) the respon)ent -en*l 32. in*lu)ing the authorities an) the appeal re*or) -/1R/.0 (he *ourt/s +in)ings are as +ollows0 GROUN.S NOS !% !! ISSUES NOT PLEA.E. 364 Learne) *ounsel +or the appellant su'mitte) that there was no plea)e) allegations o+ negligen*e with regar) to the root *anal treatment un)erta,en 'y 6r Chow on tooth 1< on 28 ?*to'er 1&&% an) 1; June 1&&< an) )espite learne) *ounsel +or the respon)ent a)mitting that su*h an issue was not plea)e)2 his -*ounsel +or appellant. o'7e*tion on the same was o errule) 'y the learne) magistrate without any reason0

Page 8 374 5 +in) it is not altogether a**urate to say that the learne) magistrate ga e no reasons as in o erruling the o'7e*tion the learne) magistrate ga e reasons stating /Dantahan )itola,0 SP3 a)alah sa,si pa,ar )an )e+en)an a,an mempunyai peluang untu, memanggil sa,si pa,arnya0 1sas ,eterangan tentang ,e*uaian ti)a, -si*. -5 thin, it shoul) rea) as /telah/. )ipli),an )alam penyataan tuntutan/ -p 1>8 o+ the 1R.0 384 De that as it may it is trite law that a party is 'oun) 'y its plea)ings as su'mitte) 'y learne) *ounsel +or the appellant -see Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- v Sabedin bin Salleh #1&&3$ 1 MLJ 3&3 an) 7anagi v Ong 5oon 8iat #1&;1$ 2 MLJ 1&<.0 (he purpose o+ the /plea)ing point/ is /to )e+ine the issues an) there'y to in+orm the parties in a) an*e o+ the *ase they ha e to meet an) so ena'le them to ta,e steps to )eal with it/0 -per LC Vohrah J -as he then was. in Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- at p 3&8 9uoting Lor) =)mun) 6a ies in )arrel v Secretar1 of State for Defence #1&80$ 1 1ll =R 1<< at p 1;3.0 5n Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- the Supreme Court agree) with the trial " 267 #+ at $ 7u)ge/s *on*lusion that the late amen)ment 'y the plainti++ see,ing to rely on *ontri'utory negligen*e a+ter the parties ha) *lose) respe*ti e *ases at the hearing *ause) the )e+en)ant to 'e ta,en 'y surprise an) was pre7u)i*e)0 Howe er in this instant *ase 5 +in) notwithstan)ing the issue o+ o er+illing o+ the root *anal was not plea)e)2 there is no pre7u)i*e an) surprise *ause) to the appellant as learne) *ounsel +or the appellant ha) in *ross"e8amination o+ the respon)ent pose) se eral 9uestions regar)ing the issue o+ root *anal treatment -pp 13&"1%02 1%8"1%& o+ the 1R.0 5n +a*t this *ase +alls s9uarely within the e8*eption mentione) at p 3&< o+ Rosita bte 5aharom ,an infant- where His Lor)ship hel) /in appropriate *ir*umstan*es2 e i)en*e gi en at a trial *an o er*ome the )e+e*ts in the plea)ings o+ the plainti++ as long as the )e+en)ant +rom the ery outset has not 'een misle)2 pre7u)i*e)2 em'arrasse) or in any way ta,en 'y surprise or le) astray 'y the plainti++/s plea)ing/0 GROUN.S NOS 6!& !! INA.MISSIBLE EVI.ENCE AN. WITNESSES NOT CALLE. 3&4 Learne) *ounsel +or the appellant su'mitte) that an a) erse in+eren*e un)er s 11%-g. o+ the = i)en*e 1*t 1&>0 ought to ha e 'een )rawn against the respon)ent4

2a) 2b)

2c)

in +ailing to *all 6r Christopher Vin*ent as a witness an) to pro)u*e the )ental report whi*h was gi en to the respon)ent: in +ailing to *all 6r Chow as a witness as he ha) un)erta,en the root *anal treatment on tooth 1<2 +irst on 28 ?*to'er 1&&%2 a'out one year 'e+ore the *rown was un)erta,en 'y the appellant2 an) the se*on) on 1; June 1&&< a'out eight months a+ter the *rown was un)erta,en an) in the light o+ the respon)ent/s *omplaints an) the a) erse +in)ings on the root *anal treatment: an) in +ailing to *all 6r Chuah Cheng Huat who also treate) the respon)ent -'esi)es 6r @as -P!2.. at Cahaya Suria Clini* an) when a 9uestion regar)ing hypon*hon)ria ha) 'een raise) at the sai) *lini*0

3 $4 5 +in) there is merit in what learne) *ounsel +or the appellant has su'mitte) as 5 +in) all the a+oresai) witnesses are material witnesses an) the )ental report o+ 6r Christopher Vin*ent to 'e a material )o*ument -2unusam1 v Public Prosecutor #1&8;$ 1 MLJ %&2 at p %&%.0 GROUN.S NOS $! % !! E9PERT IN COURT 3 4 ?n this point the learne) magistrate at p 21% o+ the 1R state) /Setelah men)engar hu7ahan" hu7ahan peguam plainti+ )an peguam )e+en)an )an " 267 #+ at C autoriti"autoriti yang )i,emu,a,an2 mah,amah 'erpuas hati 'ahawa 6r (eo Choo Cum ti)a, )i'enar,an 'era)a )i mah,amah semasa S61 mem'eri,an ,eterangan )i mah,amah/0

Page & 3 "4 Learne) *ounsel +or the appellant *onten)e) that the learne) magistrate erre) in e8*lu)ing the appellant/s e8pert2 6r (eo Choo Cum -6!3. whilst learne) *ounsel +or the respon)ent su'mitte) the learne) magistrate was *orre*t as witnesses gi e e i)en*e 'ase) on their personal ,nowle)ge an) shoul) not 'e allowe) to remain in *ourt 'e+ore testi+ying to ensure that they woul) not 'e in+luen*e) 'y the testimony o+ other witnesses0 3 #4 5 +in) there is merit in the *ontention o+ learne) *ounsel +or the appellant that the appellant/s e8pert shoul) not 'e e8*lu)e) +rom the *ourt 'e+ore gi ing e i)en*e0 Su++i*e +or me to rely on the Court o+ 1ppeal authority o+ Dr Soo )oo/ 2un v )oo )io 3a 9 (nor and another appeal #2001$ 2 MLJ 1&3 where in 'oth the appeals 'y 6r Soo an) 1ssunta Hospital2 one o+ the issues was whether it was proper +or 6r Soo/s e8pert to gi e e i)en*e a+ter rea)ing the plainti++/s e i)en*e an) that o+ her e8pert )uring the trial0 His Lor)ship Gopal Sri Ram at p 20;C"6 hel) /Erom my own e8perien*e at the Dar2 it is a *ommon o**urren*e +or e8perts on one si)e to 'e present in *ourt )uring the e i)en*e o+ the other si)e0 (his is to ena'le the e8pert not only to a) i*e *ounsel )uring *ross"e8amination 'ut also to 'e a'le to *omment on the e8pert e i)en*e o+ other si)e when he in turn gi es e i)en*e0 5t a oi)s surprise an) )elay0 5+2 +or any reason2 an e8pert is una'le to 'e present when the other si)e is gi ing e i)en*e2 it is per+e*tly proper +or him or her to later stu)y the notes o+ the e i)en*e to as*ertain the nature o+ the e i)en*e gi en/0 Su*h an approa*h is also 'orne out 'y other authorities *ite) on the appellant/s 'ehal+ li,e The Supreme Court Practice !!>2 para 38/1/< where it is state) /(he pra*ti*e relating to the e8*lusion o+ witnesses +rom the *ourt )oes not apply an) ne er has applie) to the parties themsel es or their soli*itors or their e8pert witnesses0 (hose are ne er e8*lu)e) +rom the *ourt/ 9uoting +rom Tomlinson v Tomlinson #1&80$ 1 !LR 3222 also *ite) in :omeishu Sei;o Co 6td 9 Ors v Sinma 2edical Products ,2- Sdn 5hd #1&&<$ 2 MLJ 33% at p 3%8 where the *ourt )ire*te) e8pert witnesses to 'e *alle) 'y either si)e to the )ispute may remain in *ourt while other witnesses in*lu)ing witnesses o+ +a*t were testi+ying0 GROUN.S NOS 6! 7 !! ORAL ARGUMENTS 3 54 Learne) *ounsel +or the appellant *onten)e) that the learne) magistrate erre) at the en) o+ the trial in or)ering written arguments an) re+using to hear oral arguments an) in )isregar)ing ? 28 r 1<-%. o+ the Su'or)inate Courts Rules 1&80 -/the SCR/. whi*h pro i)es +or the right to " 267 #+ at + ma,e a *losing spee*h0 Learne) *ounsel +or the respon)ent su'mitte) this groun) o+ appeal is without merit as the appellant was still gi en the right to )o the *losing spee*h0 3 %4 ?r)er 28 r 1<-1. o+ the SCR pro i)es4
1<-1. (he Ju)ge 'e+ore whom an a*tion is hear) may gi e )ire*tions as to the party to 'egin and the order of speeches at the trial4 and4 sub@ect to an1 such directions2 the party to 'egin an) the or)er o+ spee*hes shall 'e that pro i)e) 'y this rule0

-=mphasis a))e)0. 3 64 ?r)er 28 r 1<-%. o+ the SCR pro i)es4


-%. 5+ the )e+en)ant ele*ts to a))u*e e i)en*e2 he may2 a+ter any e i)en*e on 'ehal+ o+ the plainti++ has 'een gi en2 open his *ase an)2 a+ter the e i)en*e on his 'ehal+ has 'een gi en2 ma,e a se*on) spee*h *losing his *ase2 an) at the *lose o+ the )e+en)ant/s *ase the plainti++ may ma,e a spee*h in reply0

3 74 Dy irtue o+ ? 28 r 1<-1. o+ the SCR unless2 inter alia2 the trial 7u)ge gi e )ire*tions as to the or)er o+ spee*hes at the trial2 the or)er o+ spee*hes shall 'e that pro i)e) in ? 28 r 1<-3. -in a situation where the )e+en)ant )oes not ele*t to gi e e i)en*e "" not appli*a'le here. or un)er ? 28 r 1<-%. -in a situation where the )e+en)ant ele*ts to gi e e i)en*e as in this instant *ase.0

Page 10 Hn)er ? 28 r 1<-%. a+ter the plainti++ has a))u*e) e i)en*e2 the )e+en)ant may open his *ase an) may ma,e a se*on) spee*h *losing his *ase an) the plainti++ may ma,e a reply spee*h0 3 84 5n this instant *ase at p 2<3 o+ the 1R a+ter the respon)ent -)e+en)ant. *lose) its *ase the learne) magistrate ma)e the +ollowing )ire*tions4
Hu7ahan Peguam 6e+en)an "" ;0;0200> Hu7ahan Peguam Plainti+ "" %080200> Hu7ahan Peguam Plainti+ -this shoul) rea) as /)e+en)an/ instea) o+ /plainti+/ to 'e *onsistent with the /Jawapan Penghu7ahan 6e+en)an/ -pp 10&"133 o+ the 1R. "" 18080200>0

3 &4 (he learne) magistrate )eparte) +rom the or)er o+ spee*h un)er ? 28 r 1<-%. o+ the SCR an) ga e the appellant the a))itional opportunity o+ replying to the respon)ent/s reply su'mission -pp ;>"108 o+ the 1R. an) this she is entitle) to )o un)er ? 28 r 1<-1. o+ the SCR0 5 +in) the pro ision )oes not stipulate that the /spee*hes/ *annot 'e ma)e in written +orm whi*h she has so or)ere): hen*e 5 +in) the learne) magistrate *annot 'e sai) to ha e " 267 #+ at * erre) in not hearing oral arguments0 GROUN.S NOS 8!"" !! STAN.AR. O: CARE 3"$4 Hn)er this groun) o+ appeal the appellant *onten)e) that the learne) magistrate erre) 'y applying the stan)ar) o+ *are o+ a spe*ialist in en)o)onti*s instea) o+ the stan)ar) o+ *are e8pe*te) o+ a general )ental pra*titioner in a pri ate )ental *lini* when the appellant is a general pra*titioner an) the +itting o+ the *rown *omes within the +iel) o+ prostho)onti*s0 ?n the other han) it was su'mitte) 'y the respon)ent there is no )i++eren*e in the stan)ar) o+ *are 'etween the two a+oresai) me)i*al personnel as they are literally in ol e) in the treatment o+ a patient0 Eurther learne) *ounsel +or the respon)ent su'mitte) the learne) magistrate listene) to the e i)en*e o+ the e8perts *alle) 'y the appellant an) the respon)ent an) urge) the *ourt not to )istur' her +in)ing in a**epting the e i)en*e o+ 6r RoBa -P!3. an) *ite) the *ase o+ Chien Tham 8ong v &'cellent Strateg1 Sdn 5hd 9 Ors #200&$ ; MLJ 2<1 Hel) 3 at p 2<2 /5n Malaysia2 the Rogers test is appli*a'le 'y irtue o+ )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor2 whi*h pre+erre) the Rogers test to the 5olam test0 (he Rogers test )i*tates that the *ourt an) not the me)i*al pro+ession must )e*i)e on the lia'ility o+ )o*tors who are )e+en)ants in me)i*al negligen*e a*tions0 5n so )e*i)ing2 the *ourt is at li'erty to re7e*t me)i*al e8pert e i)en*e whi*h )oes not stan) up to logi*al analysis0 (he *ourt must instea) s*rutinise an) e aluate the rele ant e i)en*e in or)er to a)7u)i*ate on the appropriate stan)ar) o+ *are0 6ue regar) must 'e ha) to the rele an*y o+ the opinion o+ e8perts in line with s %>-1. o+ the = i)en*e 1*t 1&>0 /0 3" 4 5 +in) there is merit in the argument entilate) on the appellant/s 'ehal+0 5n 8night 9 Ors v <ome Office 9 (nor #1&&0$ 3 1ll =R 23; -*ite) 'y the appellant. the personal representati es o+ the )e*ease) who *ommitte) sui*i)e whilst he was put in a *ell where prison o++i*ers o'ser e) him at not less than 1> minute inter als 'rought an a*tion against the Home ?++i*e *laiming that the stan)ar) o+ *are pro i)e) +or the )e*ease) in the prison hospital was ina)e9uate0 1t p 23; the *ourt hel) /(he stan)ar) o+ *are pro i)e) +or a mentally ill prisoner )etaine) in a prison hospital was not re9uire) to 'e as high as the stan)ar) o+ *are pro i)e) in a psy*hiatri* hospital outsi)e prison2 sin*e psy*hiatri* an) prison hospitals per+orme) )i++erent +un*tions an) the )uty o+ *are in respe*t o+ ea*h type o+ hospital ha) to 'e tailore) to the a*t an) +un*tion to 'e per+orme)0 1**or)ingly2 the +a*ilities an) num'ers o+ sta++ +or the pro ision o+ me)i*al *are +or persons )etaine) in prison )i) not ha e to 'e the same as +or the spe*ialist +un*tion o+ psy*hiatri* hospitals o+ treating an) i+ possi'le *uring mental illness0 5t +ollowe) that there ha) 'een no negligen*e on the part o+ the prison ser i*e " 267 #+ at %

Page 11 in +ailing to pro i)e in the hospital wing o+ the prison in whi*h the )e*ease) ha) 'een )etaine) the patient/sta++ ratio whi*h e8iste) in psy*hiatri* hospitals/0 3""4 5t is un)ispute) that the appellant is a general pra*titioner an) the +itting o+ the *rown *omes un)er the +iel) o+ prostho)onti*s0 6r (eo -6!3.2 the appellant/s e8pert testi+ie) that he is a spe*ialist an) ha) 'een pra*tising as a prostho)ontist sin*e 1&8% with long e8perien*e in en)o)onti*s -*ommen*ing +rom 'eing a mem'er o+ Malaysian =n)o)onti* So*iety -M=S. sin*e 1&8& an) 'eing its Presi)ent +rom 1&&%"1&&& et* "" see 6r (eo/s *urri*ulum itae -e8h 68. at pp 303"30> o+ the 1R.0 6r (eo supporte) the treatment an) management pro i)e) 'y the appellant as is e i)ent +rom his e8pert opinion -e8h 6>. at pp 2&3"2&; o+ the 1R0 5n any e ent e en i+ the e i)en*e o+ P!32 6r RoBa 1non 't Mohame) Ramlee2 the respon)ent/s e8pert witness is a**epte)2 it will 'e seen that her e i)en*e is supporti e in material parts o+ appellant/s e i)en*e an) the e i)en*e o+ 6r (eo/s -6!3. e8pert e i)en*e to whi*h 5 will a))ress later when *onsi)ering the issue o+ e8pert e i)en*e0 3"#4 1s +or the *ase o+ Chien Tham 8ong 5 will re ert to this *ase later as it is also relie) on 'y learne) *ounsel +or the appellant to show the approa*h the *ourt ought to ta,e with regar) to e8pert e i)en*e a))u*e) in *ourt an) )i++eren*es o+ opinions amongst e8perts0 GROUN.S NOS "#!#% !! E9PERT EVI.ENCE 3"54 (he learne) magistrate a))resse) this issue on e8pert e i)en*e at pp 11"12 o+ the 1R0 (he appellant *onten)e) that 6r RoBa -P!3. has no pri ate )ental pra*ti*e an) at the material time in 1&&> an) 1&&< she ha) no 9uali+i*ations in en)o)onti*s ha ing o'taine) in her 9uali+i*ation the +iel) o+ en)o)onti*s in the year 20000 (he respon)ent argue) that the +a*t that 6r RoBa re*ei e) her 9uali+i*ation only in 2000 )i) not )is9uali+y her +rom gi ing e i)en*e in 200% an) the learne) magistrate )i) not err in relying on her statement as she was a spe*ialist in the +iel) o+ en)o)onti*s0 3"%4 5n this regar) 5 +in) the *ase o+ 7unaidi bin (bdullah v Public Prosecutor #1&&3$ 3 MLJ 21; *ite) 'y the respon)ent is rele ant where the Supreme Court state) at p 22& /(he la*, o+ 9uali+i*ation or e8perien*e on the part o+ the e8pert must ne*essarily a++e*t the weight o+ the e i)en*e rather than a)missi'ility/0 3"64 5 +in) what is material is whether the learne) magistrate has analyse) an) a**or)e) the proper weight to the e i)en*e o+ the respe*ti e e8perts0 5n this regar) learne) *ounsel +or the appellant su'mitte) the *ourt has to ensure " 267 #+ at > that the e8pert e i)en*e is reasona'le2 respe*ta'le an) responsi'le an) stan)s up to a logi*al analysis with respe*t to the issue o+ stan)ar) o+ *are whi*h is e8pe*te) o+ a )o*tor in the )iagnosis2 a) i*e an) treatment o+ a patient *iting the *ases o+ 5olitho ,administratri' of the estate of 5olitho ,deceased-- v Cit1 and <ac/ne1 <ealth (uthorit1 #1&&;$ % 1ll =R ;;12 Chien Tham 8ong an) 6echemanavasagar a=l S 8aruppiah v Dr Thomas :au Pa/ Chen/ 9 (nor #2008$ 1 MLJ 11>0 3"74 5n Chien Tham 8ong 5 +in) that His Lor)ship Low Hop Ding J -now JC1. has painsta,ingly a))resse) the issue o+ 'oth /the Dolam test/ an) /the Rogers test/ whi*h +a oure) the test in 5olitho/s *ase an) applie) 'y the Ee)eral Court in )oo )io 3a v Dr Soo )oo/ 2un 9 (nor #200;$ 1 MLJ >&3: #200;$ 1 CLJ 22& an) a+ter an analysis o+ the rele ant authorities therein -in*lu)ing 6echemanavasagar whi*h +ollowe) /the Rogers test/2 *on*lu)e) that /-He. woul) apply the Rogers test whi*h has 'een a**epte) 'y the Ee)eral Court in )oo )io 3a as it is 'in)ing on me0 (his test )i*tates that the *ourt an) not the me)i*al pro+ession must )e*i)e on the lia'ility o+ )o*tors who are )e+en)ants in me)i*al negligen*e a*tions0 5n so )e*i)ing2 our *ourts are at li'erty to re7e*t me)i*al e8pert e i)en*e whi*h )oes not really stan) up to logi*al analysis2 'ut instea) must s*rutinise an) e aluate the rele ant e i)en*e in or)er to a)7u)i*ate on the appropriate stan)ar) o+ *are0 6ue regar) must 'e ha) to the rele an*y o+ the opinion o+ e8perts in line with s

Page 12 %>-1. o+ the = i)en*e 1*t 1&>02 whi*h pro i)es that when the *ourt has to +orm an opinion upon a point o+ eg s*ien*e2 the opinions upon that point o+ persons spe*ially s,ille) in that s*ien*e are rele ant +a*ts/0 3"84 Eollowing the Rogers test2 5 +in) the learne) magistrate has wrongly )e*i)e) on the weight o+ e i)en*e that 6r RoBa/s e i)en*e was un*hallenge)0 5 agree with the appellant/s su'mission that the learne) magistrate has +aile) to *onsi)er that 6r RoBa ha) agree) to points whi*h were in support o+ the appellant/s )e+en*e as per the e i)en*e whi*h has 'een *are+ully i)enti+ie) 'y learne) *ounsel +or the appellant at para *+ -pp 12">%. o+ the appellant/s s,eletal su'mission )ate) 13 1pril 200& -en*l 28. -e8*ept +or para >%010 where 6r RoBa/s answer as to whether the *omplaints o+ +oo) trapping was +or only o+ one )ay )uration was in my iew am'i alent as in /May 'e or may 'e not/ +or 2; Ee'ruary 1&&< an) /Ies2 may 'e/ +or 28 Ee'ruary 1&&<.0 3"&4 5 also agree with the appellant/s su'mission that the learne) magistrate has +aile) to *onsi)er that 6r RoBa ha) agree) to material parts o+ 6r (eo/s e i)en*e as per the e i)en*e 9uote) at para ** in*lu)ing that at para *+ o+ appellant/s s,eletal su'mission )ate) 13 1pril 200& -en*l 28.0 3#$4 5n para *% -pp 1;"18. o+ appellant/s s,eletal su'mission )ate) 13 1pril 200& -en*l 28. learne) *ounsel +or the appellant has 9uote) rele ant " 267 #+ at " parts o+ the appellant/s e i)en*e with regar) to +itting the *rown without root *anal treatment: the high spots the posts an) the s*aling0 1s pointe) out 'y the appellant in para >; -p 18. o+ appellant/s s,eletal su'mission )ate) 13 1pril 200& -en*l 28.2 the use o+ posts was supporte) 'y 6r RoBa2 6r (eo an) the )ental literature entitle) /Clini*al (e*hni9ues in 6entistry4 Planning an) Ma,ing Crowns an) Dri)ges2 Dernar) G@ Smith2 -3r) =). 1&&8/0 3# 4 Eurther learne) *ounsel +or the appellant also 9uote) the rele ant parts o+ 6r (eo/s e i)en*e with regar) to +itting the *rown without root *anal treatment an) the high spots at para >8 -p 1&. o+ the appellant/s s,eletal su'mission )ate) 13 1pril 200& -en*l 28.0 3#"4 1s su'mitte) on the appellant/s 'ehal+2 5 agree the learne) magistrate has not ma)e any a) erse +in)ings against the appellant with respe*t to the posts2 the s*aling an) the polishing0 Eurthermore as su'mitte) 5 agree that the learne) magistrate has +aile) to *onsi)er the e i)en*e that +our months -28 Ee'ruary 1&&<. an) si8 months -2% May 1&&<. a+ter the *rown was +itte) -28 ?*to'er 1&&>.2 a )entist at Cahaya Suria Clini* -go ernment *lini*. ha) note) that /Crown is +irm an) +its well/ an) these +in)ings were ma)e 'e+ore the se*on) root *anal treatment was un)erta,en 'y 6r Chow on 1; June 1&&<0 GROUN.S NOS #&!5" !! CAUSATION 3##4 (he learne) magistrate/s groun) o+ )e*ision on this point is un)er the hea)ing /*hain o+ *ausation/ at pp 13"1% o+ the 1R0 3#54 (he appellant *onten)e) that the respon)ent ha) +aile) to pro e *ausation0 Learne) *ounsel +or the respon)ent su'mitte) that the *ausation starte) when the respon)ent +elt the pain a+ter the *rown was +itte) an) this was only relie e) a+ter the tooth 1< was e8tra*te) a'out se en months later0 3#%4 5 +in) that the respon)ent has +aile) to pro e that the 'rea*h o+ )uty 'y the appellant -whi*h 5 +in) has not 'een pro en. has *ause) reasona'ly +oreseea'le )amage to her as re9uire) in 5olitho2 )oo )io 3a an) 6echemanavasagar to name a +ew0 (his is espe*ially so in light o+ 6r @as/s -P!2. +in)ings +or +our months -28 Ee'ruary 1&&< at p 2;1 o+ the 1R. an) si8 months -2% May 1&&< at p 2;0 o+ the 1R. a+ter the *rown was +itte) it showe) that the *rown was not the *ause o+ the respon)ent/s *omplaints0 5n +a*t 6r @as on 28 Ee'ruary 1&&< a+ter noting that /Crown is +irm an) +its well0 Gingi al healthy0/ also note) /Pt unne*essarily worrie) -hypo*hon)ria*J.0 =8plaine) +or 20 min that there/s nothing wrong0 Returne) a+ter +i e min again

Page 13 re9uesting +or KR 000 1) ise) that it 'eing a metal *rown KR will not re eal any use+ul in+ormation/0 (he e i)en*e showe) " 267 #+ at ! the o er+illing o+ the roots2 the periapi*al lesion an) the 'ro,en +ile -)ental instrument. whi*h *ause) the respon)ent to *omplain were *onne*te) to the root *anal treatment un)erta,en 'y 6r Chow0 3#64 (he *ourt also o'ser es that on 10 July 1&&< the Cahaya Suria Clini* notes showe) the respon)ent /)e*i)e) to +ile a suit against the pri ate )entist who )i) her RC(/ an) as su'mitte) /RC(/ means /root *anal treatment/ an) the pri ate )entist is 6r Chow0 1**or)ing to these notes it showe) the respon)ent was aware o+ /Per+oration o+ a root "" +illing materialJ/)ental instrument -as *laime) 'y the pt. to the peri*ipi*al tissues0/ an) the in*i)ent regar)ing the per+oration too, pla*e in 6r Chow/s *lini* on 1; June 1&&< a'out eight months a+ter the *rown was +itte) 'y the appellant0 3#74 5t is also signi+i*ant to note that on 1% July 1&&< the respon)ent testi+ie) -p 138 o+ the 1R.4
5 isite) Hospital Cuala Lumpur on 1%01001&&<0 6r Christopher atten)e) to me0 (he *rown tooth was e8tra*te)0 6r Christopher e8tra*te) the tooth0 ?n 2&01001&&<2 5 went to see 6r Christopher again to re*ei e the last treatment0 1+ter the *rown tooth e8tra*te) on 1%01001&&<2 5 +elt something was not right0 (here+ore2 on 2&01001&&<2 5 went to see 6r Christopher again an) he remo e) something0

3#84 Dase) on the respon)ent/s own e i)en*e it woul) appear the remo al o+ the tooth with the *rown )i) not sol e her pro'lem as she sai) /1+ter the *rown tooth was e8tra*te) on 1% ?*to'er 1&&<2 5 +elt something was not right0/ an) she ha) to see 6r Vin*ent 1> )ays later an) he /remo e) something/0 GROUN.S NOS 55!57 !! NO ASSESSMENT O: .AMAGES 3#&4 (he respon)ent su'mitte) that the learne) magistrate ha) gi en the )amages as praye) 'ase) on the plea)ings a+ter *onsi)ering the +a*ts o+ the *ase an) the su++ering o+ the respon)ent0 35$4 5 agree with learne) *ounsel +or the appellant that the learne) magistrate has erre) in +ailing to assess the )amages a+ter +in)ing lia'ility0 35 4 Eor *ompleteness2 5 )o not +in) it ne*essary to *onsi)er the groun) o+ appeal on )elay in *ompleting the trial2 in pronoun*ing 7u)gment an) in gi ing the groun)s o+ )e*ision0 5n my iew it is su++i*ient 'ase) on the " 267 #+ at $# a+oresai) reasons to +in) that the learne) magistrate has mis*on)u*te) the trial 7usti+ying an or)er +or a retrial as su'mitte) 'y learne) *ounsel +or the appellant0 De that as it may2 in the light o+ the un*hallenge) e i)en*e2 the non"7oin)er o+ 6r Chow2 the respon)ent/s +ailure to *all the rele ant witnesses2 5 agree with learne) *ounsel +or the appellant that the appropriate or)er is to allow the appeal an) )ismiss the *laim an) a**or)ingly 5 or)er that the appeal 'e allowe) an) the )e*ision o+ the learne) magistrate gi en on 1 Septem'er 200> 'e set asi)e an) the respon)ent/s *laim is here'y )ismisse)0 Pursuant to s 21-3.-*. o+ the Legal 1i) 1*t 1&;1 no or)er as to *osts is ma)e against the respon)ent as she has a legal ai) *erti+i*ate0 (ppellant?s appeal allowed and respondent?s claim dismissedA

Page 1%

Reporte) 'y 1n)rew Christopher Simon

You might also like