It is clear from the torts cases that have come in the Malaysian courts to seek remedies under the Tort Law that these cases were mainly confined to the defamation and nuisance, cases of negligence from both the sides, and the breach of the duty of care in the context of the occupiers of the premises and assets. The position of Tort law in Malaysia can be understood by having a look at the trend of the courts in Malaysia where, for several years and till date, the courts have been following their counterparts in England. However, it is not a surprise for anyone, since the Torts law is a common law and has evolved in England throughout many years.
Civil Law Act 1956, Section 3
Civil Law Act 1956, Section 3 (I) allows the courts of West Malaysia to use England’s common law as operated and functioning in England. However, it is important to note that despite the said provision containing in the Civil Law, the Malaysian courts tend to follow the English decisions and judgments, specifically where there is no law writer on the points in the country. Even though, by Section 3(I) of the Civil Act’s 1956 virtue, the West Malaysian courts are allowed to follow English law before 195; however, in the absence of any kind of statutory provisions, the court regards tends to regard the English courts’ decision after 1956 as convincing.
One of the examples of such a scenario can be seen in a recent case of LLN v. RAMAKRISHNAN, which concerned with the duty of occupier towards the trespasser. The Federal court of Malaysia followed the decisions taken in the case of British Railway Board v. Herrington held in England. In British Railway Board v. Herrington case, the House of Lords decided that the occupier owes a duty of care towards the trespasser as he did not act with common humanity. According to the Lordships, an occupier is held liable if he/she knew about the presence of trespasser or at least there are facts that render the presence of the trespasser considerably likely.