CHEGNE PECK PENG v HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Catchwords
TORT: The plaintiff’s claim is against the defendant for negligence in constructing the retaining wall in 2005 with an inadequate factor of safety (FoS) which caused to its collapse on 6.12.2018 – The property is situated on sloping terrain directly adjacent to a pond within the Kota Permai Golf and Country Club - All four experts reached a consensus in Bundle L, agreeing that the retaining wall collapsed due to a rise in the groundwater level behind it - Bundle L does not constitute technical evidence, as some parts are inconclusive and the Court has a duty to determine the findings of fact - Whether the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiff as pleaded in paragraph 26 of the Statement of Claim dated 16.11.2021 - Whether the Defendant had breached its duty of care owed to the Plaintiff as pleaded in paragraph 27 of the Statement of Claim - Whether the Defendant failed to construct the Retaining Wall with a sufficient FOS value, resulting in its collapse on 6.12.2018 - Whether the plaintiff can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
CHEGNE PECK PENG v HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 28, 2025 (citation: ba-22ncvc-300-07-2023). The case was decided by Hazizah binti Kassim.
Key issues: EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950.
What was the outcome of CHEGNE PECK PENG v HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD?
CHEGNE PECK PENG v HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated August 28, 2025. The case was heard by Hazizah binti Kassim. See the full judgment for details.