Hee Awa & Ors v Syed Muhammad Sazalay b Syed Ali Wara & Anor

Basic principles
Where injury has been done to the Plaintiff and the injury is indivisible, any tortfeasor whose act has been a
proximate cause of the injury must compensate for the whole of it.
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors
Plaintiff can obtain judgment for total compensation from anyone whose act has been a cause of his injury.

Cabell v Vaughan
Serjeant William: If several person jointly commit a tort, the plaintiff has his electipn to sue all or any number
of the paties; because a tort is in its nature separate act of each individual.

Hume v Oldacre
Lord Ellenborough: defendant, being a co-trespasser, is liable to answer for the whole of the damage.

This principle has found acceptance in the jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India,
Singapore, Malaysia.

Third Party proceeding O16r1

Heralded the winds of change came in the

Supreme court’s decision in
Tan Chik b Ibrahim v Safety Life & General Insurance SB
Where the pillion rider of a motor vespa was injured as a result of an accident involving the motor vespa and a
motor lorry. The pillion rider proceeded to sue the ride of the motor vespa and the driver and the owner of the
motor lorry.
The rider of the motor vespa and the driver of the motor lorry were subsequently held liable. The pillion rider
then sought to enforce the whole judgment sum against the insurers of the motor lorry.
S80(1) Road Traffic Ordinance imposes an obligation on the insurer to pay to the person entitled to the
benefit of the judgment any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability. Insurer is under a duty to pay
only the amount which the insured person has been ordered by the trial court to pay the third party claimant
(i.e. the TP claimant to the insurance bc the claimant to the insurance is the insured client)

Hee Awa
Pillion rider of a motorcycle sustained fatal injuries as a. result of an accident involving a motorvan, and the
administrators of the estate of the deceased pillion rider filed proceedings against the van driver and the
owner. The owner of the motorvan applied under O15r6(1)(b) RHC for an order that the motorcyclist be
joined as a co-defendant.

2 grounds:
1. Direct effect test
2. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings

Pegang Mining CO Ltd v Chong Sum & Ors

A person may be joined as co-D if his right against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the
subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action

Gurtner v Circuit
L Denning: it now appears that one joint tortfeasor defendant is entitled to join the other tortfeasor as co-Ds
pursuant to O15r6(2)(b) in order that liability is not borne by one joint tortfeasor defendant but apportioned
amongst all the joint tortfeasors.