Search results
Nuisance Government of Malaysia v Akasah b Ahad Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan S/B v Kim Seng Enterprise (Kedah) S/B Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth S/B Dr Harnam Singh v Renal Link (KL) S/B Goh Chat Ngee v Toh Yan Hotel Continental S/B v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion S/B Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd Pacific Engineering Ltd v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd ...
In the case of the Government of Malaysia & Anor v Akasah b. Ahmad [1996] 1 MLJ 396 i) P operated a petrol station. The Df built a federal highway which was on higher ground than the petrol station and the road to the station had to be closed ii) the df offered to build a road to the petrol station thru another route but the P refused.
Sep 21, 2021 · Firstly, the differences between these two is that only a direct act may give a rise to an action for trespass to land but in nuisance a cause of action may be maintained in cases of consequential harm. This can be illustrated in the case of Goverment of Malaysia & Anor v Akasah b Ahad.
To reinforce this proposition, Mr. Navaratnam cited a passage by Lee Hun Hoe CJ Borneo in the Supreme Court case of Government of Malaysia & Anor. V Akasah bin Ahad (1986) 1 MLJ 396 where he says: "It is the contention of the defendants that they are not liable for nuisance under section 7 of the Government Proceedings Ordinance, 1956.
According to the case of Government of Malaysia v Akasah bin Ahad, the respondent was a Shell Malaysia dealer who worked at a gas station along the federal highway, according to the circumstances of the case.
Mar 8, 2009 · Nuisance distinguished. a) Nuisance and trespass to land. In an action for trespass to land there must be a direct act of crossing over into another’s property. However, an action nuisance may be maintained in cases of consequential harm. Government of Malaysia & Anor v Akasah b Ahad [1986] 1 MLJ 396 SC. P operated a petrol station.
[1] The Government of Malaysia and the Director General of Public Service who are the Appellants, are appealing against the decision of the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of the High Court delivered on 8 January
