HERE a case...
Lee Lap Tiang a supervisor in Ban Tai Technology and Engineering Sdn. Bhd was supervising the loading of company’s product when he slipped and fell. Medical examination showed that his pelvic bone was broken. Investigation conducted by the company’s Health and Safety Department showed that the cause of the incident was due to the present of grease on the floor left by employees from the maintenance unit who had earlier service the machines in that area.
Lee Lap Tiang decided to sue Ban Tai Technology and Engineering Sdn. Bhd for negligence and claimed compensation of RM 100,000. During the court proceeding Lee Lap Tiang put forward several common law cases to strengthen his application. Accordingly, he claimed that the court was bound to follow the principles laid down in those cases.
At the hearing;
1. Ban Tai Technology and Engineering Sdn. Bhd argued that Lee Lap Tiang cannot sue the company because being an employee of the company, Lee Lap Tiang is covered under the SOCSO scheme thus, all injury sustained at workplace is borne by SOCSO.
2. Ban Tai Technology and Engineering Sdn. Bhd also argued that English cases cited by Lee Lap Tiang were not relevant and applicable.
Discuss.
Approach to discuss law assignment.
1. Identify the issue(s).
2. Identify the law(s)
3. Apply the law to the issue.
4. Conclusion
help me!!!! which law in Malaysia that applicable to this case? is it Employment & Labor Law???
6 comments:
erm..erm...x dpt nk tolong..sory yer atih..
law tek kiat boleh tolong kot..hehe..
all d best atih.. :)
salam..
kak atih..
in terms of which law is relevant towards this cases, orang rase, Employment &Labour Law yang paling sesuai kot..
SUPPORTING DETAILS:
1. Article 5 in Federal Constitution said that " no person should be deprived of his private save accordance with the law.."
but, in this cases,LEE LAP TIANG cannot proceed with his summon as there is a policy enroled the law.. all the claims of insurrance should be proceed under SOCSO as it said to be valid because it is written law.
2. tapi, orang rase lee lap tiang can proceed with HABEAS corpus.. KALU DIER PROCEED NGAN habeas corpus, employer x leh halang as he is the one who have been unlawfully detained.. direct claims should be bring to the high court only..
conclusionnya, orang rase, untuk die menang case ni, 70%.. kalu private prosecutor die bijak, satu je key untuk against the employee..
"KECUAIAN DALAM MENITIK BERATKAN ASPEK KESELAMATAN"
.. SEMOGA BERJAYA KAK ATIH..+_+
case nie agak familiar.. tapi, nampak senang tapi complecated......
ceh.
hse ke?
haha.
wah.
bibah amek law ke?
dasat2.
sekian,
bijen baik
haah..
anak kecil yang baru nak belajar marangkak...
best kan law..
chaiyok2 kak atih!!
tq ek bibah ^_^
Post a Comment