The client came to the firm to seek an advice on his and his son’s legal position
regarding an accident happened which involved one Mr. Richard Chong. 3 months
ago, he and his son, Syukri aged 15 went to the Everest Climbing Centre in Shah
Alam. They are regulars at the Centre. During the first visit, they were taught on how
to attach the harness to themselves properly while during the second visit, they will
attach the harness by their own and checked by the staff at the Centre. During
subsequent visits, they will not be checked as the staff has satisfied that they know
how to attach the harness properly.
During the visit when the accident happened, his son was climbing the wall while the
client was holding the safety rope of Syukri. This Mr. Richard Chong saw that
Syukri’s harness was not attached properly. He climbed to help but subsequently fall.
He shattered his right leg and has to wear metal braces.
ISSUES ARISE
If Mr. Richard Chong decided to file a claim against our client, there are several
defences that might be raised by our client.
• There might be several damages that Mr. Richard Chong might claim against
our client
• However, it is still too early to determine what the damages that might be
claimed as there is still no news on behalf of Mr. Richard Chong and a case
against our client has yet to be filed.
• If Mr. Richard Chong decided to claim damages against our client, he might
file a claim of special damages [pre-trial pecuniary loss] such as medical
expenses incurred for his hospitalization and treatment.
• As we are yet to receive any information or medical report on Mr. Richard
Chong’s medical condition, it is too early to determine the quantum of
damages that he might claim
• He might also claim for the expenses incurred by his family members to visit
him at the hospital. [Although no proof, court assume they have done so as it
is a custom in this country – Mat Jusoh v Syarikat Seberang Jaya Takir SB =
Chapter 1 SD: 19]
• He might as well claim for general damages [non-pecuniary loss] such as pain
and suffering and loss of amenities. Again, as Mr. Richard has yet to file a
claim against the client, we may not know the exact amount that he might
claim for this head of damages.
• The limitation period for cases based on torts is 6 years from the date on
which the cause of action accrued (s6(1)(a) Limitation Act).
o Three months had passed. So, there’s another 5 years 9 months if Mr.
Richard Chong decided to file a claim against our client
• An issue of Guardian Ad Litem [for the time being] can also be raised. Since
Syukri is a minor as he is 15 y.o [s.2 Age of Majority Act 1971], Syukri can
only be sued through his guardin ad litem as provided for under Order 76 rule
2(1) who in this case is the client himself.
• Advice client not to be worried – mr Richard chong has yet to sue him or his
son.