Kerugian Ekonomi Tulen: Perbandingan di antara Pendekatan Mahkamah di England dengan Mahkamah di Malaysia

Rahmah Ismail, Rozlinda Mohamed Fadzil, Sakina Shaik Ahmad Yusoff, Suzanna Mohamed Isa, Affaf Abd Halim

Abstract


ABSTRAK

Tuntutan kerugian ekonomi tulen tidak mendapat layanan yang memberangsangkan daripada mahkamah. Mahkamah begitu berhati-hati dalam membenarkan tuntutan untuk kerugian ekonomi tulen. Ini mungkin disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor, seperti, kesukaran untuk menentukan jumlah ganti rugi dan terdapat juga kebimbangan bahawa orang ramai akan mengambil peluang mengemukakan tuntutan yang palsu. Mengadaptasi metodologi analisis kandungan ke atas kes-kes yang diputuskan di England dan Malaysia, objektif artikel ini adalah untuk menganalisis keputusan kes–kes kerugian ekonomi tulen di England dan Malaysia serta seterusnya membuat perbandingan pendekatan mahkamah di kedua-dua buah negara tersebut dalam kesediaan mereka untuk membenarkan tuntutan bagi kerugian ekonomi tulen. Analisis ke atas beberapa kes-kes kerugian ekonomi tulen yang relevan yang diputuskan menunjukkan bahawa mahkamah di England telah cuba untuk membuat pembaharuan dalam pendekatan mereka dengan membenarkan tuntutan bagi kerugian ekonomi tulen. Namun begitu, kes-kes yang diputuskan kemudiannya menunjukkan bahawa mahkamah di England masih mengekalkan pendekatan tradisional mereka dengan tidak membenarkan tuntutan bagi kerugian ekonomi tulen. Walau bagaimanapun, perkembangan yang berlaku di Malaysia sekitar tahun 1990an dan di awal tahun 2000 menunjukkan satu perkembangan yang penting yang mana tuntutan bagi kerugian ekonomi tulen berhubung dengan kecacatan bangunan telah dibenarkan. Sama ada mahkamah negara ini bersedia untuk membenarkan tuntutan ekonomi tulen dalam kes-kes kecuaian lain belum dapat ditentukan lagi. Namun begitu, perkembangan ini menunjukkan kesediaan mahkamah di Malaysia untuk mewujudkan prinsip common law yang tersendiri.

Kata kunci: Kecuaian; kerugian ekonomi tulen; kecacatan bangunan; England; Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

Pure economic loss claims do not receive favaourable treatment from courts. The courts are too cautious in allowing claims for pure economic loss. This may be due to various factors, such as, the difficulty in determining the amount of damages and there is also an apprehension that many people will take advantage by making fictitious claims. Adopting the content analysis methodology on the decided cases in England and Malaysia, the objective of this article is to analyse the decided cases in England and Malaysia pertaining to pure economic loss and thereafter compare the approach taken by the courts in both countries in the aspect of their willingness to allow claims for pure economic loss. Analysis of several relevant decided cases showed that the English courts had made some effort to reform their approach by allowing pure economic loss. However, subsequent decided cases showed that the courts in England still maintain their traditional approach by not allowing claims for pure economic loss. On the other hand, the development of cases in Malaysia in the1990s and early 2000 showed a significant development whereby the claims for pure economic loss in relation to defective buildings were allowed. Whether the courts in this country will allow claims for pure economic loss in other negligent cases, are yet to be ascertained. Nevertheless, this development shows the willingness of the Malaysian courts to create its own common law principles.

Keywords: Negligence; pure economic loss; defective building; England; Malaysia.


Full Text:

PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


DISCLAIMER

The editors and publisher of Jurnal Pengurusan have made every possible effort to verify the accuracy of all information contained in this publication. Any opinions, discussions, views and recommendations expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and are not of Jurnal Pengurusan, its editors or its publisher. Jurnal Pengurusan, its editors and its publisher will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom.