-23.9.

19

akta fitnah
donoghue and stevenson - negligence law introduced

TORT LAW - TRESPASS TO PERSON

The plaintiff should prove that there was intention behind the action before bringing it to court. For the case of Letang v Cooper: writ
was only submitted 3 years later - high court then allowing the appeal that the action was barred by time and the defendant was not
liable / could not bring it under negligence as it was time-barred. Besides the intention for intentional tort, there must be physical harm
involved / harm to properties / reputation. Deliberate action = action involving a plan, not on impulse. What a positive act is - the act is
carried out. If the act is not carried out, it is a negative act. e.g, A person takes someone's book - positive act. The moment the book is
touched, that is trespass. If there is a fire and the person does not take the book as a result - negative act. Direct act - no middle person
- action committed directly to the plaintiff. Plaintiff need not have to prove - falls under actionable per se.

Fourth type of tresspass to person - liability under wilkinson v downton. Not under the other three types.

Assault.

MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM 24.9.19

Alasan Britiah & Portugis - utk membina gudang. Ilmu pengetahuan sgt penting.Francis Light - tentera laut British - dtg dgn kapal
tentera laut British.Mencari peluang utk bertapak di PP - lihat ada potensi. Berlakunya kucar-kacir (kerajaan Kedah memiliki PP,
Sultan Muhammad Jiwa, perlanunan berlaku di perairan Kedah - Kedah juga menerima serangan drpd kerajaan2 lain, spt Siam - Siam
mengangga Kedah merupakan wilayah jajahannya - mengatakan Kedah perlu menghantar kufti kpd Siam (bunga emas) - berlakunya
konflik/konfrontasi antara kerabat2 diraja utk merebut takhta) Francis melihat ini sbg peluang utk bertapak - pergi berjumpa dgn
Sultan Kedah - mengatakan dia mahu membina gudang di PP. Mrk membuat perjanjian. Maka 12 Ogos 1786, Francis menduduki PP. -
menamakannya Prince of Wales Island.

Timbul isu - apakah undang2 yg digunakan ? lex loci - apabila sesuata tempat diduduki/diserahkan, penentuan undang2 adalah
bergantung kpd status (lex loci) tempat itu. Dalam penentuan lex loci, ada byk pendapat berkenaan.

Perjanjian adalah dgn bantuan ketenteraan - namun apabila Kedah diserang drpd Siam & Bugis, tiada sokongan ketenteraan drpd
Francis Light. Sultan cuba mendapat balik PP, tetapi gagal, krn Francis Light mempunyai ketenteraan yg moden. Satu perjanjian
baharu dibuat - Seberang Perai (dipanggil Provins Wellesley) juga diambil oleh Francis - Sultan dipaksa menyerahkan wang sbyk X

le

x loci, diduduki (newly settled), diserahkan (ceded), english law, customary law, ubahsuai.

Kalau pulau yg tak ada orang punya, maka ia diduduki. (English Law/Law of person who inhabits it first). Kalau pulau yg ada orang
dijajah, maka ia diserahkan. (Customary Law - law of the people already there) (If English Law boleh dipakai tertakluk kpd apa yg
berlaku seterusnya)
PP dikatakan ada berpenghuni - sepatutnya undang2 dipakai adalah CL (undang2 adat tempatan) - perjanjian ditandatangani oleh
Sultan & F.L. mengatakan bhw PP ada sebahagian drpd Kedah - Undang2 Inggeris X boleh diapakai langsung di PP - namun begitu,
bbrp kes telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah.
Kes Regina v. Willans [1858] 3 Ky 16 & 4 kes-kes lain WAJIB DIBACA

tak ada bukti bhw penduduk menguatkuasakan undang2 mrk, maka undang2 Inggeris dipakai. Apabila FL menduduki PP, isu yg
timbul - setakat mana undang2 Inggeris digunakan di PP? Mahkamah Keadlian dibentuk - X didasarkan undang2 Inggeris secara
keseluruhan - kbykan kes2 yg dijalankan oleh magistret2 yg dipilih oleh FL - berdasarkan natural law ( undang2 semulajadi -
berdasarkan kpd apa yg hakim anggap sbg betul/salah -keputusan byk bergantung kpd faktor2 lain sbg latar belakang pendidikan,
agama, family background e.g pendera, pengalaman, 'kaca' e.g. nilai2 ketimuran & Barat ) - justice byk kpd benda abstrak, susah
menentukan ketempatannya.

Di PP, kehakiman X melibatkan warga Eropah - hanya orang tempatan yg dihukum kalau membuat jenayah. Undang2 yg ditadbir byk
kpd natural justice . Orang British, James Son melakukan pembunuhan - kes dibicarakan - peguam negara ( dihantar ke Jakarta )
Undang2 negara berdasarkan statut/akta 13 Geo 3. Berdasarkan statut tersebut, s 14, undang2 British dipakai bagai 3 jajahan British
shj, bunga, beha dan orissa X ada PP, James X boleh didakwa, dibebaskan drpd tuduhan. Akibatnya, pihak British pada tahun 1850,
meminta meminda akta Geo 3 untuk membolehkan ia dipakai di PP - melantik general baru Sir George Letts - utk mentadbit undang2
berdasarkan pada prinsip2 undang2 British - dgn syarat: pemakaian berbentuk am & tidak menyeksa penduduk tempatan - namun
begitu, pada tahun 1801, melantik Dickens, Dickens kata undang2 pada PP berterabur - X tersusun, terurus, keputusan hakim
berdasarkan natural law shj, byk bercelaruan - walaupun british bagi arahan kpd george letts, undang2 belum lagi terpakai. Dickens
buat rayuan kpd British ttg perkembangan undang2 PP kerana menyusahkannya - PP berkembang sbg pusat perdagangan - ekoran
drpd kecelaruan ini, British memperkenalkan Piagam Keadlian Pertama di PP 1807.

TORT LAW
Find some more cases on your own for extra reference.

intentional torts: 4 + 4 + 4 + 3
ILAC. application: facts of the case - apply into the scenario, then conclude if the case is satisfied. bring in law, give cases to support
your argument. When answering questions in the exam, for the problem question, you first identify the issues in the case. Whether A
can take legal action against B for assault, for example. Whether C can sue B for false imprisonment/battery, etc. Discuss issue by
issue. Start with issue #1. Start with the definition - define what is assault. Define issue #2 - define what is false imprisonment, etc.
Definitions and important things in slides. Highlight these important things in the exam, with respect to the questions. Explain how
you apply elements into the questions. Best way to explain the elements, other than just repeating what you read from the textbook or
lecture, is to bring in cases. This is the significance of understanding, comprehending and memorizing facts of the cases, the principle
laid down in the case as well as the decision. You must also be able to explain to the examiner why you choose this case and not other
cases. What the link between the case that you cite and the situation given in the question, is.

Assault - some textbooks only have 1st 3 elements (most important ones). Bodily movement is similar to #3 - is it possible for you to
carry out the tort? These 4 elements need to be proven by the plaintiff - that the defendant fulfills all these points.

1. Mental state of the defendant (intentional torts) - impression as perceived by plaintiff, not as the defendant intends. Turberville v
Savage [1669] 'If not for X/me knowing X, I would kill you.' It was held that the words of the defendant negated the intention to
injure the plaintiff, so the tort did not happen. In order for the defendant to be liable, all the 4 elements must be satisfied. Defendant
was found not liable.The court interpreted that there was no intention. Based on the principle of this case, we still follow it today.

2. Effect on the plaintiff - plaintiff must be fearful of an impending battery. R v St George [1840]. Defendant aimed an unloaded pistol
at the plaintiff. The effect on the plaintiff was that s/he sincerely thought s/he would be killed. The court ruled that yes, there was an
effect on the plaintiff - which is to say the fear of being killed - which is enough to fulfill this element. Blake v Barnard [1840] Court
ruled that the action of the defendant aiming an empty pistol at the plaintiff had no effect on the plaintiff. The presence of bullets is not
important. Only the impact/fear/apprehension to fear produced on the plaintiff matters. These two cases contradict each other, and can
be useful in answering examination questions. If #2 has been satisfied, use R v St George; if not, then use Blake v Barnard.

3. Capability to carry out the threat - plaintiff must believe that the defendant is capable of carrying out the threat (comitting battery)
immediately after the assault/threat has been given to the plaintiff. Thwarted attempt to commit battery is still an assault. Stephen v
Myers [1840] The defendant clenched his fists and charged towards plaintiff, then a third party came to the rescue of the plaintiff so
there was no battery. However,the assault still persists. Court ruled that 3rd element was satisfied, and the assault was proved because
he wouuld have carried out the threat if not for the intervening third party. Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985]
Mineworkers wielding pickets and protesting, however it was a controlled protest with the presence of the police. The 3rd element was
not satisfied, because none of the 2 parties could have carried out the threat due to the presence of the police controlling them. Legal
assault did not take place.
4. Bodily movement - body language must be there to confirm #3. An extension of #3. Innes v Wylie [1844] Policeman did not allow
plaintiff to enter the room. He stood still - so body language element not satisfied as he did not commit any positive act. (Intention of
the policeman was in line with his line of duty to guard the place, so it could be permissible by law)

Battery - elements #2, #3, #4 are different from the elements in assault.