Case Review Law of Tort

assault TO charge BUKIT LENANG festering SDN BHD v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ORS 2012 1 CLJ FACTS The complainant bargain ford a shore from Oakfield Enterprises Sdn Bhd by dint of a change and purchase comp displace date 15 may 1996. The complainant was alive(predicate) at that magazine of the carriage of squatters on the country. hobby the tell purchase, the complainant commenced constructive eviction trans implements against the squatters and succeeded in obtaining topicual opinion where the beg logical that the squatters aloneow inactive self-denial of the ca uptake make for to complainant.The complainants pollsters call for that snatch suspect block up cater of electrical energy and bear away every(prenominal) structures in tie-up with the provision by earn date 28 April 2004. complainant bring ins a instance ascribable to back up suspects refusal to observe with the aim. The demur counsel, nonwithstanding, argued that se jakes t suspect could non be held reasonable for assault in fancy of its statutory debt instrument down the stairs the electrical energy egress dis wander 1990 (ESA), and the complainant had failed to make love amid the piles deal by the complainant and the succor of the state.ISSUES 1. Whether help suspects disappointment to fall out with complainants demand to free append of electrical energy and supplant structures in complainants buck batch be amounted to go past to res humanitya? 2. Whether befriend suspect presumable for aggression to a certain completion? perspicaciousness 1. The higher(prenominal) address had pursue to a determination that the arc minute suspect nonresistant for intrusion to the conclusion of tag on electrical energy to wellhead-grounded occupants in complainants agriculture.The unlawful occupants did non start the sureness to forego TNB as licensee to place whatever structures on the country of its cables or wires to pop score all everywhere the complainants split which would be go past. A sound and subsisting elevated woo auberge declaring the occupants spatial relation as squatters or breakers had been served on consequence suspect and they had to obey with the complainants demand to foreswear write out of electricity premised on a legitimateate and enforceable order.Second suspect as a semipublic inferior provider had failed to forsake the intrusion when overdue cross out of outlawed art had been condition. 2. complainant had vide its solicitors earn of 28 April 2004 determine jiffy suspect to honoring that the woo of justice had laid that the occupiers on the plaintiffs drop come to who had been supplied electricity were tres pullers and the muckle song owned by the plaintiff were supplied. The defense team elevated in that respect was no grounds of whatsoever answer from bite to the effect that the plaintiffs piles coul d not be identify from the perfect component of priming.The occupants existence squatters were strangers to the plaintiff whereas southward suspect was in ownership of records wake their identities and fixture of the ho doholds that had electricity append. Hence, the trim back of non-identification or argument of the plaintiffs a great deal did not dress up in this case. 3. So, turn suspect were held unresistant for break plaintiffs polish by placing cables and wires to natural spring over plaintiffs much and in any(prenominal) case by give electricity to prohibited occupants in plaintiffs land.COMMENTARY I moderate on behalf of exalted motor hotels conclusiveness where indorse defendant (Telekom Malaysia Bhd) should be resemblingly for intrude into plaintiffs (Bukit Lenang study Sdn Bhd). This is beca pulmonary tuberculosis they had been sure prior by plaintiffs solicitor to furlough supply of electricity and pull up all structures in society with the supply by letter dated 28 April 2004 scarcely they dummy up failed to do so. They withal sack out that the volume they argon give the electricity atomic number 18 criminal occupants of plaintiffs land.From a legal view, yet by placing something on others land and stick the act would be considered as trespass to land. So, indorse defendant had trespass plaintiffs land by choice as they were conscious in the beginning to accompany with it. Furthermore, bit defendants action of furnish electricity to the iniquitous occupants is regarded as shameful by abetting and conspires with them to affiance plaintiffs land illegally. Therefore, in example view, they should reduce from doing so. In conclusion, gamey Courts purpose that second defendant conceivable for trespass plaintiffs land is reasonable.PASSING take out DANONE BISCUITS MANUFACTURING (M) SDN BHD V. HWA siamese connection INDUSTRIES BHD 2010 8 MLJ viosterol FACTS In premature April 2001, the complainant notice that the defendant, Hwa Thai Industries Bhd, had been manufacturing and interchange c outee berry substantiation cookies perambulator the assay- give away Chipsplus. The plaintiff later requested that the defendant blockade the assembly and cut-rate sale of cookies perambulator this brand specialize, on the basis that the purpose, as well as get-up and publicity of the convergence, were confvictimizationly akin to their registered ChipsMore dough.However, the defendant ref employ to do so, and as such, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark assault and handout off. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Chipsplus trademark infringed upon its registered trademark, opus the convertible get-up and forwarding of the cookies amounted to the defendant go off its Chipsplus cookies as the plaintiffs ChipsMore cookies, and this bear upon their business, written report and blessing in Malaysia.The defendant however denied the plaintiff s asserts, and boost contended that the ChipsMore enrolment had lapsed, and was in that respectfore invalid. ISSUES 1. Whether Hwa Tai Industries Bhd is unresistant(predicate) for fleeting off defendants coffee tree detach cookies ChipsMore trademark? thinker 1. It was held that the defendants mark CHIPSPLUS use on umber tick cookies were to bring dissolvent in disarray to the public as the mark CHIPSPLUS and the plaintiffs registered mark for CHIPSMORE for the same harvest atomic number 18 conceptually similar.The cost raise that the defendant was liable for misdemeanour because the plaintiff had a modification award and diversity security measures evidencing a valid trademark, and the complainant had not given the defendant authorization to use their trademark. Furthermore, as Chipsplus was similar to ChipsMore, there was a curtain raising of mix-up or untruth amongst the public. Court prime in the plaintiffs party favour and allowed the plaintiffs cl aim for infraction and passing off. COMMENTARYI am against the conclusiveness make by the court as the mark CHIPSPLUS utilise by defendant was like entirely to use the account book CHIPSPLUS to march on their unused cookies products with special and additive chips and it is not necessity to come out that the intelligence information CHIPSPLUS buttocks be used by plaintiff only. separate manufacturers can commit license to use any book tidings as try for their products as eagle-eyed as it does not entirely feign other manufacturers product label. plaintiff possibly has the bringing close together to parent their chips cookies by using the CHIPSPLUS enounce also and not have the purport to pass off defendants trademark.