TEST LAW227 – NUR HANISSA AQILAH BINTI ISMAIL (2020873554)

Problematic Question:

1) Issue

- The issue is whether the laptop was stolen or lost through the default or neglect of the
defendant ?

2) Law (if no section. Refer common law)

- Section 4 of Innkeepers Act 1952 states that Inn is define as any hotel, boarding-
house or other place where a person is harboured or lodged for any kind whatsoever of hire
or reward and where domestic service whatsoever is rendered by the owner, lessee,
principal tenant, occupier or manager to the person so harboured or lodged, licensed under
any written law for the time being in forced in West Malaysia. It is generally acceptable that
innkeeper is the person who owned the inn and run the business of the hotel. Under this
case which is section 4(a) of Innkeepers Act 1952 states that stolen or lost or injured through
the wilful act or default or neglect of the innkeeper or his employees would give the guest
right to claim. It is clearly that she put all her valuables including her laptop inside the safe
deposit box. There is a presumption that misplacement is due to its own negligence.
However, the presumption can be refuted if one can prove seeing through cctv.
3) Case

- This can be illustrated in the case of Bui Van Tuyen & Anor v Overseas Union
Enterprise Ltd (1979) where the Plaintiff kept her jewelleries in her handbag and placed it in
her suitcase under some clothes. After locking the suitcase, she gave the room key to the
reception. When she lost the jewelries after her suitcase was forced to open and her things
ransacked, investigations showed that somebody had entered her hotel room while she was
away. It was held that the guest was not negligent and they had breached its duty of care to
be liable for the guest’s loss.

- Another example is in the case of Shacklock v. Ethorpe Ltd. [1939] under common
law where the guest had done reasonable care on protecting her own property by placing
her jewels in a jewel box and then locked in a large suitcase. She then went downstairs and
left the door unlocked. Unfortunately, the jewel box and money had been stolen. The court
held that the guest who left the room’s door open was not negligent since the hotel wished
the door to be left open for cleaning. The innkeeper was liable. However in this situation, Dr.
Yuhanis not state whether she locks the door or not. But in these two cases stated that the
guest was not negligent even if she did not lock the door.

4) Application

- The application of the presumption of law is under section 4(a) of Innkeepers Act 1952.
It is clear that she put all her valuables including her laptop inside the safe deposit box
provided in her room. Therefore, Berjaya Hotel is liable to pay Rina RM500 or less.

5) Conclusion

- Since all the elements are fulfilled, Dr. Yuhanis could take legal action against Berjaya
Hotel.