Palaniammal d/o Parasuraman v 1. ) Swissmed Sdn Bhd 2. ) Oculentis BV PENCELAH Kerajaan Malaysia

wa-22ncvc-672-10-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 October 2024 • WA-22NCvC-672-10/2020 • 45 min read
19 cases cited (0 SG, 19 foreign)

Outcome

Ultimately, I dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation, as there was no contractual relationship between the parties and no evidence of misrepresentation by the 1st Defendant.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncvc-672-10-2020). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Consumer Protection Law – Defective Medical Device – Intraocular Lens – Section 32 – Section 33 – Section 41 – Section 52 – Section 68 – Section 70(4) – Section 72(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1999 – Implied Guarantee – Manufacturer’s Liability – Distributor’s Liability – Product Recall – Field Safety Notice – Scientific and Technical Knowledge – Duty of Care – Negligence – Breach of Duty – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Donoghue v Stevenson – Stennett v Hancock – Medical Device Authority – Misrepresentation – Breach of Contract – Privity of Contract – Section 16 of Sale of Goods Act 1957 – Agency – Distribution Agreement – Special Damages – General Damages – Aggravated Damages – Pre-Trial Damages – Future Damages – Burden of Proof – Judicial Interpretation – Pleadings – Surprise Contention – Evidentiary Threshold – Declaratory Relief – Dismissal with Costs

Practice Areas

Contract Damages Tort

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (6)

P.S. Ranjan & Co. Firm Raja, Darryl & Loh Firm Desmund Mun Ching Yong Counsel Plaintiff Manmohan S Dhillon Counsel Plaintiff Melanie Lim Sheng Ning Counsel Defendant Raja Eileen Soraya Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

Kerajaan Malaysia Intervener Swissmed Sdn Bhd Defendant Oculentis Bv Defendant Palaniammal d/o Parasuraman Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Cap 599)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (19)

UK (3)
[1932] AC 562 [1939] 2 All ER 578 [1955] 1 All ER 180
MY (16)
[1978] 1 MLJ 211 [1981] 2 MLJ 10 [1983] 2 MLJ 324 [1991] 1 MLJ 428 [1993] 2 MLJ 416 [1995] 3 MLJ 395 [2000] 1 MLJ 449 [2014] MLJU 674 [2015] 1 MLJ 284 [2015] 6 MLJ 1 [2018] 5 MLJ 281 [2019] 6 MLJ 439 [2019] MLJU 584 [2020] MLJU 543 [2021] MLJU 2787 [2022] 1 MLJ 778

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-672-10-2020)