# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things Nurulhuda Adabiah Mustafa has made

# data[].attributes.headline
WRITEN ASSIGNMENT F GROUP LWB02E & F APRIL 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
WRITEN ASSIGNMENT F GROUP LWB02E & F APRIL 2019

# data[].attributes.body
GROUP 1: DEFAMATION
GROUP 2: OL
GROUP 3: NUISANCE
GROUP 4: VL
GROUP 5: SL

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 14TH MAY 2019

COMMON TEST: 7TH MAY 2019 (DONE)!!!

FORMAT:

TIMES NEW ROMANS - FONT 12 - SPACING 1.5 - JUSTIFY

NOT MORE THAN 10 PAGES, NOT LESS THAN 5000 WORDS

REFERENCES: AT LEAST 2 ACADEMIC PAPERS FROM GOOGLE SCHOLAR

FOOTNOTING / END NOTE

# data[].attributes.body
Date of presentation: 26th March 2019 group

# data[].attributes.headline
TUTORIAL 1 AT WEEK 3 GROUP E AND F 12.3.2019 UPDATED 11.3.2019

# data[].attributes.subject
TUTORIAL 1 AT WEEK 3 GROUP E AND F 12.3.2019 UPDATED 11.3.2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
STRICT LIABILITY-THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

# data[].attributes.headline
LECTURE 6 PRIVATE NUISANCE 18/10/2018 C1/T1

# data[].attributes.subject
LECTURE 6 PRIVATE NUISANCE 18/10/2018 C1/T1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LECTURE 4 OCCUPIERS LIABILITY_1_pdated 9102018

# data[].attributes.headline
LECTURE 3 REVISION ON DEFAMATION ISSUES AND CASES

# data[].attributes.subject
LECTURE 3 REVISION ON DEFAMATION ISSUES AND CASES

# data[].attributes.body
Please complete the slides before print

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LECTURE 3 LAW OF TORTS II - INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION ON DEFAMATION

# data[].attributes.headline
LESSON PLAN LAW498 SEPT 2018-JAN 2019 - Prepared by Nurulhuda Adabiah Mustafa 9th August 2018 at 8.47 a.m.

# data[].attributes.subject
LESSON PLAN LAW498 SEPT 2018-JAN 2019 - Prepared by Nurulhuda Adabiah Mustafa 9th August 2018 at 8.47 a.m.

# data[].attributes.headline
ASSALAMU'ALAIKUM & GOOD DAY TO ALL MY LAW498 STUDENTS (LECTURE & TUTORIAL), FRESH AND REPEATERS...WELCOME!

# data[].attributes.subject
ASSALAMU'ALAIKUM & GOOD DAY TO ALL MY LAW498 STUDENTS (LECTURE & TUTORIAL), FRESH AND REPEATERS...WELCOME!

# data[].attributes.body
30.8.2018
HELP ME GET MORE SPACE IN PADLET BY CLICKING THIS LINK>>>
https://padlet.com/referrals/nurulhuda_adabiah

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Adibah Zahra
2017683538
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamad Amirul Hakim Bin Mohamad Zamri
2017678082
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamad Amirul Hakim Bin Mohamad Zamri
2017678082
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamad Amirul Hakim Bin Mohamad Zamri
2017678082
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamad Amirul Hakim Bin Mohamad Zamri
2017678082
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamad Amirul Hakim Bin Mohamad Zamri
2017678082
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mind Map Submission- Vicarious Liability

# data[].attributes.subject
Mind Map Submission- Vicarious Liability

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Amirah binti Mohd Kassim
2017678394
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Amirah binti Mohd Kassim
2017678394
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.headline
DEFAMATION, NUISANCE, OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY & VICARIOUS LIABILITY

# data[].attributes.subject
DEFAMATION, NUISANCE, OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY & VICARIOUS LIABILITY

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Nina Syahira Binti Abd Ghani
2016331769
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Defamation, Nuisance, Occupier's liability & 

# data[].attributes.subject
Defamation, Nuisance, Occupier's liability & 

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Nina Syahira Binti Abd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Nurul Fatin Laila Bt Norazman
2017806844
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Aisyatul Akmal binti Zainal Anuar
2017806986
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Aisyatul Akmal binti Zainal Anuar
2017806986
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Aisyatul Akmal binti Zainal Anuar
2017806986
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Nureen Elysya Bt Sakya
2017806918
LWBO2K

# data[].attributes.body
Nureen Elysya Bt Sakya
2017806918
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nureen Elysya Bti Sakya
2017806918
LWBO2K

# data[].attributes.body
Aisyatul Akmal binti Zainal Anuar
2017806986
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nurul Fatin Laila Bt Norazman
2017806844
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Aisyatul Akmal binti Zainal Anuar
2017806986
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. A person who has sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who came lawfully on the premises.

2.1. Contractual Entrant

2.1.1. Main purpose entrant

2.1.1.1. Purpose is the use of the premise in question, the occupier ensures that the premise was safe and all reasonable care and skill had been taken care of. Maclenan v Segar

2.1.2. Ancillary purpose entrant

2.1.2.1. Premise was mere ancillary, the occupier warranted that he had taken all reasonable care to ensure that the premise was safe. -Gillmore v London County Council

2.2. Invitee (common interest)

2.2.1. Whether the occupier knew or ought to have known that the invitee was being exposed to the unusual danger

2.2.2. Factors for liability include; if the occupier knows or ought to know the danger, danger is unusual, the danger is not known to the plaintiff & the occupier has failed to avoid such dangers.

2.2.3. Types

2.2.3.1. Legally authorised entrants

2.2.3.2. Business visitors

2.3. Licensee (no business interest)

2.3.1. Duty owed

2.3.1.1. The occupier owes a duty to warn him of any concealed danger or trap of which he actually knew

2.3.1.2. A licensee must take the premises as he finds them, subject to the occupier's duty to warn him of concealed dangers, not to set traps and not to injure the licensee by any positive act.

2.3.2. Types

2.3.2.1. As of right

2.3.2.2. By implied permission

2.3.2.3. Social visitor

2.3.2.4. Child licensee

2.3.2.4.1. Duty : Similar to those owed to adult licensee.

2.3.2.4.2. Factors include whether an object is an allurement, reasonableness of parents & primary responsibility of parents to ensure their safety. - Phipps v Rochester Corporation

2.4. Trespasser (without permission/ illegal)

2.4.1. Duty owed

2.4.1.1. Duty of common humanity

2.4.1.1.1. It is reasonable in all circumstances of the case that the non-visitor or trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concealed. -British Railways Board v Herrington

2.4.1.1.2. 3 requirements

2.4.1.2. Child trespasser

2.4.1.2.1. An occupier has a duty not to have on his land objects that are dangerous but are also an allurement or invitation to them. Glasgow Corporation v Taylor

3.1. Warnings

3.1.1. An attempt to fulfil one's obligation by supplementing the physical state of one's premises with helpful information for the visitors.

3.2. Notice

3.2.1. Where the occupier is not trying to be helpful or informative, but is just trying to escape from liabilities by claiming that the plaintiff agreed not to sue for risks specified in the notice.

3.3. Volenti Non Fit Injuria

3.3.1. No duty is owed to any person in respect of a risk willingly accepted.

3.4. Exclusion clause

3.5. Contributory negligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2.1.1.1. Purpose is the use of the premise in question, the occupier ensures that the premise was safe and all reasonable care and skill had been taken care of. Maclenan v Segar 2.1.2.1. Premise was mere ancillary, the occupier warranted that he had taken all reasonable care to ensure that the premise was safe.

# data[].attributes.body
Nureen Elysya Bt Sakya
2017806918
LWBO2K

# data[].attributes.body
Nureen Elysya Bt Sakya
2017806918
LWBO2K

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie June Thomson
2016331777
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie June Thomson
2016331777
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie June Thomson
2016331777
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie June Thomson
2016331777
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie June Thomson
2016331777
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Nadziratul Fakhriah Aspar
2017683514
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nadziratul Fakhriah Aspar
2017683514
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Saqinah bt Amir
2017806988
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Saqinah bt Amir
2017806988
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Saqinah bt Amir
2017806988
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Saqinah bt Amir
2017806988
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Saqinah bt Amir
2017806988
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Yus Ezzette binti Mokhtar
2017683522
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Yus Ezzette binti Mokhtar
2017683522
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Nadziratul Fakhriah Aspar
2017683514
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
Nurul Fatin Laila Bt Norazman
2017806844
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
AIMAN NAJIHAH BINTI ZULKHAIRI
2017806922
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.headline
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY & VICARIOUS LAIBILITY

# data[].attributes.subject
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY & VICARIOUS LAIBILITY

# data[].attributes.body
AIMAN NAJIHAH BINTI ZULKHAIRI
2017806922
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Nadziratul Fakhriah Aspar
2017683514
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
ABDULLAH AHMAD NABIL
LWBO2H

# data[].attributes.body
ABDULLAH AHMAD NABIL
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.body
Nadziratul Fakhriah Aspar
2017683514
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.body
SHERON FEDDRIN
2016331845
GROUP H

# data[].attributes.body
SHERON FEDDRIN
2016331845
GROUP H

# data[].attributes.body
SHERON FEDDRIN
2016331845
GROUP H

# data[].attributes.body
SHERON FEDDRIN
2016331845
GROUP H

# data[].attributes.body
SHERON FEDDRIN
2016331845
Group H

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Nursumaiyyah Binti Mohammad Amin
2016239592
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Ili Fatini Ishark
2017807042
LW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Aini bt Hishamudin
2017678106
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Liability imposed on the defendant without any proof of fault on his part., The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher, The rule by Blackburn J in the Court of Exchequer...

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Aini bt Hishamudin
2017678106
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Aini bt Hishamudin
2017678106
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. Definition: - An unlawful interference with a person's use of land, or some right over or in connection with it.

1.2. Objectives: - To balance the conflicting interests between neighbours - To decide at what point an interference becomes intolerable

1.3. Types of Interference:

1.3.1. Encroachment onto the plaintiff's land

1.3.1.1. "entering into someone else's property"

1.3.1.2. E.g: Overhanging branches from a neighbour's tree into the plaintiff's garden

1.3.1.3. Davey v Harrow: The court held the defendant liable for encroachment of land under private nuisance where the roots of trees from the defendant's property had entered the plaintiff's adjoining property and caused damage to it.

1.3.2. Physical damage to the plaintiff's land

1.3.2.1. Where the plaintiff suffered actual damage to the property.

1.3.2.2. E.g: A renovation causes cracks to appear on the plaintiff's property; water overflow from the defendant's property causes damage to the plaintiff's house.

1.3.2.3. Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB: The court granted an injunction even though the piling works to the defendant's hotel were temporary as it had caused cracks to appear on the plaintiff's heritage building.

1.3.3. Interference with the plaintiff's comfort and convenience (amenity nuisance)

1.3.3.1. Where the plaintiff does not suffer any physical damage to his property, but feels discomfort.

1.3.3.2. Where he is unable to live peacefully on his land as a result of the defendant's activity.

1.3.3.3. Where the defendant's activity becomes intolerable.

1.3.3.4. E.g: Continuous noise, foul smell, fumes, dirt, dust.

1.3.3.5. Bone v Seal:The court held the defendant liable as foul smell coming from a pig farm for 12 years was a nuisance.

1.3.3.6. Tetley v Chitty: The court held the defendant liable as noise coming from a go-cart track which could be heard in the plaintiff's house was a nuisance

1.4. Elements:

1.4.1. 1. There must be a substantial interference

1.4.1.1. The plaintiff must have suffered damage.

1.4.1.2. Hotel Continental SB v Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion SB: The court granted an injunction even though the piling work to the defendant's hotel was temporary as it had caused substantial interference, which was the appearance of cracks, on the plaintiff's heritage building.

1.4.2. 2. Unreasonableness

1.4.2.1. Rule: The interference must be unreasonable before it can be considered unlawful.

1.4.2.2. TEST of reasonableness:

1.4.2.3. According to Buckley J in Saunders-Clark v Grosvenor Mansions Co Ltd, "The court must consider whether the defendant is using the property reasonably or not. If he is using it reasonably, there is nothing which at law can be considered a nuisance, but if he is not using it reasonably then the plaintiff is entitled to relief."

1.4.2.4. Factors determining reasonableness:

1.4.2.4.1. 1. Locality

1.4.2.4.2. 2. Seriousness of the interference

1.4.2.4.3. 3. Duration of the interference

1.4.2.4.4. 4. Hypersensitivity

1.4.2.4.5. 5. Malice

1.5. Who can sue in private nuisance?

1.5.1. In order to bring an action in private nuisance, the plaintiff must have an interest in the property affected.

1.5.2. Plaintiff must have a connection to the property.

1.5.3. E.g: Has title, ownership or is an occupier of the land.

1.5.4. Where a house is jointly owned, both have title to the property.

1.5.5. This excludes those without interest, thus a person cannot sue without an interest in the land.

1.5.6. E.g: Hotel guests, licensees, a wife, children etc.

1.5.7. Malone v Laskey: The court denied the plaintiff her remedy for the injury that she suffered arising from the defendant's construction site as she did not have any interest in the property.

1.6. Who can be sued in private nuisance?

1.6.1. The person responsible for creating the nuisance, the occupier or the landlord.

2.1. Definition: - From the case AG v PYA Quarries: "It is an unlawful act which endangers the lives, health or comfort of the public or a substantial section thereof."

2.2. Categories: 1. Cases which satisfy the requirement of private nuisance but affect a much larger number of people (more than one person). 2. Cases which involve interference with safety or convenience of members of the public, but do not satisfy the basic requirements for an action in private nuisance.

2.3. Elements:

2.3.1. 1. Must show that the person affected by nuisance constituted the public or a section of the public.

2.3.1.1. AG v PYA Quarries: The court granted an injunction and held that a few houses affected by the dust and vibration from the defendant's quarry activities were enough to constitute the public as there was a sufficiently wide impact.

2.3.1.2. Lord Denning: There is no specific number to amount to a public. If the activity affects a representative cross-section of the society, it is enough to be a public.

2.3.2. 2. The plaintiff must show special damage.

2.3.2.1. The damage is a direct and substantial loss beyond that suffered by the general public.

2.3.2.2. The type or extent of damage is more serious than what is suffered by other persons exposed to the same interference.

2.3.2.3. E.g: Personal injury, damage to property.

2.3.2.4. Rose v Miles: The court held the defendant liable for blocking the river with his boat as the loss of time, money and addition transport cost was sufficient special damage to support the plaintiff's claim.

3.1. 1. Rebuttal

3.1.1. Where the defendant counter-argues and contends that his activity is reasonable.

3.2. 2. Statutory authority (For both, private and public nuisance)

3.2.1. Where there is a statute which allows the defendant to conduct the activity.

3.2.2. Allen v Gulf Oil Refining: The court held that the defendant had a defence of statutory immunity where a statute authorised the defendant to carry out oil refinement work even though the plaintiff complained of the noise, smell and vibration.

3.3. 3. Act of nature

3.3.1. Where events occur out of the control of defendant and without any human intervention

3.3.2. E.g: Heavy rainfall, earthquakes, landslide.

3.4. 4. Consent

3.4.1. - Where the plaintiff had consented to the defendant's activity.

3.5. Invalid defences

3.5.1. 1. Coming to the nuisance

3.5.1.1. Where the defendant contends that his property had been there first, and it was the plaintiff's fault for choosing to live there.

3.5.1.2. It is invalid as under the Federal Constitution, the plaintiff has a right to move to wherever he wishes.

3.5.1.3. Thus, the defendant cannot prevent the plaintiff from living there, and the plaintiff has a right to bring an action under private nuisance.

3.5.1.4. However, only an action to minimize the nuisance can be brought against the defendant.

3.5.1.5. E.g: An action to shut the defendant's factory down cannot be instituted

3.5.2. 2. Public benefit

3.5.2.1. The usefulness of the defendant's activity.

3.5.2.2. The defendant cannot contend that his activity is not a nuisance because it will benefit the public.

3.5.2.3. Adams v Ursell: The court held that the defence of public benefit was invalid and cannot be raised by the defendant even though the public often ate at his fish and chips shop as the continuous smell of fish was a nuisance.

4.1. 1. Injunction

4.1.1. court order to the defendant to minimize the nuisance.

4.2. 2. Damages

4.2.1. To compensate for physical damage to the property or personal injury.

4.3. 3. Abatement (Only for private nuisance)

4.3.1. Where the parties take the law into their own hands.

4.3.2. The defendant seeks permission from the plaintiff to remedy the situation.

4.3.3. E.g: The defendant asks for the plaintiff's permission to cut off the tree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1.3.1.1. "entering into someone else's property" 1.3.1.2. E.g: Overhanging branches from a neighbour's tree into the plaintiff's garden 1.3.1.3. Davey v Harrow: The court held the defendant liable for encroachment of land under private nuisance where the roots of trees from the defendant's property had entered the plaintiff's adjoining property and caused damage to it.

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Aini bt Hishamudin
2017678106
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. It concerns the liability of an occupier to persons who are injured on his premises.

1.2. "Occupier" according to Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon: "Occupier is simply a convenient word to denote a person who has sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who came lawfully on the premises."

2.1. The concept of an occupier relates to the control exercised by the person over the premise.

2.1.1. Control: When a person has the right to allow people in and restrict people from leaving.

2.1.2. Once it is established that a person has sufficient control over the premise, he is deemed to be the occupier.

2.2. Wheat v Lacon: The court held that although a license to use the first floor was given to the manager and his wife, the defendant had equal and sufficient control over the private premise on the first floor together with the manager, thus making both parties occupiers, and therefore, jointly liable for the death of the plaintiff.

3.1. According to Peh Swee Chin SCJ in Datuk Bandar, Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur v Ong Kok Peng & Anor, there are four types of entrants, each with a duty of care owed:

3.1.1. 1.Contractual entrants

3.1.1.1. Arises from an agreement or contract between the parties and is based on contractual rights.

3.1.1.2. The highest duty of care is owed to contractual entrants.

3.1.1.3. Two types of contractual entrants:

3.1.1.3.1. 1) Main purpose entrants

3.1.1.3.2. 2) Ancillary purpose entrants

3.2. 2. Invitees

3.2.1. A person who enters the premises of the occupier with his consent in the pursuit of a common interest with the occupier.

3.2.2. Two types of invitees:

3.2.2.1. 1) Legally authorized entrant

3.2.2.1.1. A person who enters the premise as a matter of law (where statutes allow them to enter)

3.2.2.1.2. E.g: Police, fire-fighters, health inspectors.

3.2.2.2. 2) Business visitors or associates

3.2.2.2.1. A person who enters the premise, whether it is public or private, for a materialistic reason, and brings economic advantage to the occupier.

3.2.2.2.2. E.g: A customer at a supermarket, a motorist at a petrol station, a customer a bank, an employee at work, a football player at a stadium.

3.2.3. Duty of care owed: An occupier owes his invitees a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury from unusual danger of which he knows or ought to know. (An occupier is required to be familiar with his premise)

3.2.3.1. Unusual danger: Extraordinary danger that is not common for the purpose of a particular invitee. A danger which is not usual or expected in carrying out the task.

3.2.4. Indermaur v Dames: The court held the defendant liable for the injury suffered by the plaintiff from falling through a hole in the floor as it was an unusual danger which was known to the defendant.

3.2.5. Takong Tabari v Government of Sarawak & Ors: The court held the defendant liable for the death of the bank customer arising from the gas leakage which caused an explosion as it was an unusual danger which was known or ought to have been known by the defendant.

3.3. 3. Licensees

3.3.1. A person who has the permission of the occupier to be on the premises for a purpose for which the occupier has no interest.

3.3.2. Three types of licensees:

3.3.2.1. 1) Those entering as of right

3.3.2.1.1. E.g: Entering public places such as the library, pool.

3.3.2.1.2. Different from having to pay a substantial amount like contractual entrants

3.3.2.1.3. Licensees only pay a token amount

3.3.2.2. 2) Those entering by implied permission

3.3.2.2.1. E.g: Entering elevators

3.3.2.3. 3) Those entering as mere social visitor

3.3.2.3.1. E.g: A family coming to visit

3.3.3. Duty of care owed: A licensee must take the premises as he finds them, subject to the occupier's duty to warn him of concealed dangers, not to set traps and not to injure the licensee by any positive act.

3.3.3.1. Two factors:

3.3.3.1.1. The occupier's knowledge: Where the occupier had actual knowledge of the danger or ought to have known of it

3.3.3.1.2. Concealed danger: It is hidden and an element of surprise. It is sufficient that the licensee was not aware or was not expected to be aware of the danger.

3.3.4. Datuk Bandar, Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur v Ong Kok Peng & Anor: The court held the defendant liable for the injury that the plaintiff suffered from falling down the shaft of a lift as it was a trap to which the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff about.

3.3.5. Child licensees

3.3.5.1. An occupier must be prepared for children who enter the premise to be less careful than adults

3.3.5.2. A child cannot be expected to be aware of dangers that may be obvious to adults

3.3.5.3. Duty of care owed: Similar duty owed to adult licensees.

3.3.5.4. Must put into further consideration:

3.3.5.5. Whether an object is an allurement or not is determined by looking at the age of the child

3.3.5.6. That reasonable parents will not permit their children to be sent into danger without protection

3.3.5.7. The primary responsibility to ensure the safety of the children is upon the parents

3.3.5.8. Places where children are allowed to wander unaccompanied by adults may be significant

3.3.5.9. Phipps v Rochester Corporation: The court held the defendant not liable even though the children suffered injuries as the defendant had a right to assume that reasonable parents would not allow their children to venture into open spaces without exercising any control or ensuring the safety of the place.

3.4. 4. Trespassers

3.4.1. A person who enters into a premise without permission, express or implied, from the owner and whose presence is either unknown to the proprietor or if known, is objected to.

3.4.2. Duty of care owed:

3.4.2.1. Duty of common humanity: A duty to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances of the case that the non-visitor or trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concealed.

3.4.2.1.1. There are three requirements:

3.4.2.2. Must put into further consideration: An occupier not only has a duty not to have on his land objects that are dangerous, but also objects which are an allurement or invitation to them.

3.4.3. British Railways Board v Herrington: The court held the defendants liable for the injury suffered by a child who stepped on the electric railway tracks as the defendants must take reasonable steps of common humanity and common sense to avoid danger, or to give warnings to people who might be on his premises.

3.4.4. Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (Child trespassers): The court held the defendant liable as the poisonous berries, the consumption of which led to the child's death, was a form of allurement which the defendant should have been aware of.

4.1. 1. Warnings

4.1.1. An attempt to fulfil one's obligation by supplementing the physical state of one's premises with helpful information for the visitors.

4.1.2. For children a written or oral warning may be insufficient.

4.1.3. TEST: Whether the warning had the effect of enabling the visitor to be reasonably safe.

4.2. 2. Notice

4.2.1. Where the occupier is not trying to be helpful or informative, but is just trying to escape from all liabilities by claiming that the plaintiff agreed not to sue for risks specified in the notice.

4.2.2. Ashdown v William Samuels & Sons Ltd: The court held that the defence of notice was successfully raised against the plaintiff who suffered injury from being on the premises as the notices were clear and sufficient to preclude the defendant from liability.

4.3. 3. Volenti Non Fit Injuria

4.3.1. No duty is owed to any person in respect of a risk willingly accepted.

4.4. 4. Exclusion clause

4.5. 5. Contributory Negligence

5.1. 1. Damages

5.2. 2. Injunction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
3.1.1.1. Arises from an agreement or contract between the parties and is based on contractual rights. 3.1.1.2. The highest duty of care is owed to contractual entrants. 3.1.1.3. Two types of contractual entrants: 3.1.1.3.1. 1) Main purpose entrants 3.1.1.3.2. 2) Ancillary purpose entrants 3.2.2.1. 1) Legally authorized entrant 3.2.2.1.1.

# data[].attributes.body
Siti Aishah Aini bt Hishamudin
2017678106
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. Lord Atkin : Sim v Stretch: A untrue statement which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or which tends to lower him in the esteem of right thinking members of society or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.

1.2. Defamation Act 1957 was enacted to protect the reputation of others

2.1. 1.Libel

2.1.1. statements made in a permanent form.

2.1.2. E.g: statues, caricatures, statements in newspapers, signs, pictures, movies, television broadcasts, statements made on the radio

2.1.3. Live television broadcasts: it reaches more listeners/viewers and has a greater capacity to do harm.

2.1.4. actionable per se.

2.1.5. Datuk Syed Kechik Syed Mohamad v Datuk Yeh Pao Tzu & Ors: The court granted the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction as the defamatory statement published through caricatures of the plaintiff by the defendant in the newspaper disclosed a clear case of libel.

2.1.6. Yousoupoff v MGM: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because the defamatory statement contained in the film made by the defendant is libel.

2.2. 2.Slander

2.2.1. statements made in a temporary form

2.2.2. E.g: spoken words, sound tapes, records, dictations

2.2.3. not actionable per se, EXCEPT:

2.2.3.1. a) If the words impute the commission of a crime

2.2.3.1.1. A statement made alleging that the plaintiff has committed a crime for which he may have been imprisoned.

2.2.3.1.2. Sivanathan v Abdullah Dato' Abd Rahman: Where the defendant called the plaintiff a cheat, dishonest, and a liar, the court held that the plaintiff's claim failed as the 'crimes', which did not attract corporal punishment, was not actionable per se.

2.2.3.2. b) If the words impute a contagious disease suffered

2.2.3.2.1. A statement made alleging that the plaintiff is currently suffering from a contagious or infectious disease.

2.2.3.3. c) If the words impute the non-chastity of a woman

2.2.3.3.1. Section 4, Defamation Act: The publication of words which imputes non-chastity or adultery to any woman or girls requires no proof of special damage (actionable per se) for the action to succeed.

2.2.3.3.2. Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Leng: Where allegations were made by the respondent in the presence of a third party that the appellant was a prostitute and charged RM50 to entertain men, the court held that slander was established as the words had impugned the appellant's chastity.

2.2.3.4. d) If the words are calculated to lower the plaintiff's profession or business reputation

2.2.3.4.1. Section 5, Defamation Act: The publication of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication.

2.2.3.4.2. E.g: An allegation of dishonesty and corrupt practices against the plaintiff, either on the basis that the office is an office of profit, or that the defamatory words intimated that the plaintiff had acted without integrity.

3.1. Principle: Only living persons can bring an action in defamation.

3.2. A dead person cannot bring an action in defamation no matter how provocative the statement may be.

4.1. 1. The statement made must contain a defamatory meaning.

4.1.1. TEST: A statement is defamatory if it lowers the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

4.1.2. Byrne v Dean: The court found the defendant not liable for the statement made as informing the police of a crime is a heroic act which does not lower the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

4.1.3. Words may be defamatory in two ways:

4.1.3.1. i) By its natural and ordinary meaning: The statement made contains a literal meaning.

4.1.3.1.1. The meaning that the words would convey to ordinary reasonable persons.

4.1.3.1.2. Hasnul Abdul Hadi v Bulat Mohamed: The court found the defendant liable for calling the plaintiff 'Abu Jahal' as the statement was defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning.

4.1.3.2. ii) By innuendo

4.1.3.2.1. The statement becomes defamatory through inferences, special facts or circumstances known by the reader.

4.1.3.2.2. Words with a special, hidden or inner meaning only known to certain people.

4.1.3.2.3. Tolley v JS Fry: The court held the defendant liable as those who knew the plaintiff's status as an amateur golfer would reasonably assume by way of innuendo that the plaintiff had consented to, and had been paid for the advertisement.

4.2. 2. The statement made must have referred to the plaintiff.

4.2.1. TEST: Whether an ordinary reader would reasonably come to the conclusion, based on the statement as a whole that it referred to the plaintiff.

4.2.1.1. Morgan v Odham Press (No named person): The court found the defendant liable as a substantial group of people who knew the plaintiff understood that the statement made regarding the kidnapping referred to him, even though the plaintiff was never referred to by name.

4.2.1.2. Hulton & Co v Jones (Fictional name): The court found the defendant liable as those who knew the plaintiff understood the words in the article of a fictional character named Artemis Jones as referring to the plaintiff, although that was not intended by the author and publisher.

4.2.1.3. Newstead v London Express Newspaper (Two people of the same name): The court held the defendant liable even though there were in fact two people, including the plaintiff, of the same name, and the defamatory statement made was true of the other, but not the plaintiff.

4.2.1.4. Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper (Class defamation): The court held the defendant not liable as the total membership of the party was several thousand and no particular member, including the plaintiff, could claim that the report made referred to him.

4.2.2. The ordinary reader must be able to immediately identify the person being addressed.

4.2.3. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to be addressed through initial letters.

4.2.4. It does not matter if the defendant had no knowledge of the plaintiff's existence.

4.3. 3. The statement must be published to a third party.

4.3.1. "Publication": Making known the defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written.

4.3.2. Theaker v Richardson: The court held that there is publication where the defendant knew or ought to have foreseen that the statement would come to the attention of a third party as is reasonably expected in circumstances where a defamatory letter is sent to the house of a married woman and is read by her husband.

5.1. 1. Fair comment

5.1.1. Section 9, Defamation Act: A statement in the form of opinion, which is based on true facts, and which is made with fairness on a matter of public interest and without malice.

5.1.2. Requirements:

5.1.2.1. Comment must be an opinion

5.1.2.2. Comment must be based on true facts - TEST: Whether the fair minded, ordinary man upon being told of the words, would regard them as a statement of fact or comment.

5.1.2.3. Comment must be fair - TEST: Whether someone who honestly held that opinion could fairly make the same comment. - Comment must be an honest expression of the writer made in good faith.

5.1.2.4. Comment must not be malicious - Malice: Ill will or spite or any improper motive in the mind of the writer at the time the statement was made. - Where the language used is unnecessarily strong and disproportionate to the occasion, it might give rise to malice.

5.1.2.5. Comment must refer to matters of public interest - Where the comment concerns a matter which affects people at large, so that the public may be interested in or concerned of what is going on or what may happen.

5.1.3. Dackhyll v Labouchere: The court held that the defence of fair comment was successfully raised against the plaintiff as the defendant's statement that the plaintiff was a "quack of the rankest species" was only a comment to the plaintiff's profession as a specialist for ear, nose and throat diseases.

5.2. 2. Justification

5.2.1. Section 8, Defamation Act: A defence of justification is sufficient if the truth of the words that have materially injured the plaintiff's reputation can be proven. The defence shall not fail only for the reason that the truth of the words in the statement which have not materially injured the plaintiff's reputation cannot be proven.

5.2.2. Conditions to be fulfilled:

5.2.2.1. A defence for the defendant to show that the article complained of is true.

5.2.2.2. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statement made is true.

5.2.3. Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam: Where the defendant could prove the truth of one of the allegations made, the court held that the defence of justification was successfully raised against the plaintiff as the unproved allegation did not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation.

5.3. 3. Unintentional defamation

5.3.1. Where a defendant unintentionally and innocently publishes defamatory material of another person under three circumstances:

5.3.1.1. 1) The publisher did not intend to refer to the plaintiff and did not know of any circumstances whereby they might have been understood to do so.

5.3.1.2. 2) The words were not defamatory on the face of them and the publisher did not know of any circumstances whereby they might have been understood to be defamatory.

5.3.1.3. 3) In either case, the publisher was not negligent.

5.3.2. Must be followed by an offer of amends under Section 7, Defamation Act. - An offer of amends: A sufficient apology to the aggrieved party and an offer to correct the words complained of, as well as to take reasonable steps in notifying the third party that the words distributed were defamatory.

5.3.3. If the plaintiff is named, the defence is not applicable

5.3.4. Sandison v Malayan Times Ltd & Ors: Although the plaintiff was not named, the court rejected the defence of unintentional defamation as the article clearly referred to the plaintiff, which proved that the defendant had not published the defamatory article unintentionally, and because there was a time lapse of more than a month before the first offer of amends was made.

5.4. 4. Privilege

5.4.1. Provided under Sections 12(1) and (2), Defamation Act.

5.4.2. There are two types of privileges:

5.4.2.1. 1) Absolute privilege: Where words which are harmful to a person's reputation are not actionable. - Statements made in or reports made of Parliamentary proceedings - Statements made in or reports made of judicial proceedings - Communication between officers of state under an official duty - Communication between spouses

5.4.2.2. 2) Qualified privilege: Where communication is made in good faith on a matter in which the party communicating it has an interest, or duty to do so and the recipient of the communication has a corresponding interest or duty to be informed of the matter. - Statements made between parties who have a mutual interest over the subject matter - Statements made to fulfil a legal, moral or social duty - Statements made to protect one's own interest or property - Statements made to settle public nuisances or disputes - Accurate or fair report of proceedings such as Parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings and public meetings

5.4.2.2.1. Watt v Longsdon (to fulfil a legal, moral or social duty): The court held that a report made by the company director to the chairman of the plaintiff's immoral activities with other women was under qualified privilege, but communication of the same matter to the plaintiff's wife was not privileged as the defendant had no duty to pass on that information to her.

5.5. 5. Innocent dissemination

5.5.1. A defence applicable for mere distributors.

5.5.2. Conditions to be fulfilled:

5.5.2.1. He was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement.

5.5.2.2. He took all reasonable care in relation to the publication and he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that he caused or contributed to the publication.

5.5.2.3. When the article was disseminated by him, it was not by any negligence on his part.

5.6. 6. Consent of the plaintiff

5.6.1. Where the plaintiff has consented to the publication, there can be no action.

6.1. 1. Damages

6.1.1. In an action for defamation, damages for loss of reputation are involved.

6.1.2. The plaintiff may stipulate the sum he is claiming for as a measure of is worth.

6.1.3. Tan Sri Dato' Vincent Tan v Hj. Hassan Hamzah: The court found the defendant liable for defamation and granted the plaintiff damages worth RM10 million.

6.2. 2. Injunction

6.2.1. To prevent further publication or broadcast of the defamatory statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2.2.3.1. a) If the words impute the commission of a crime 2.2.3.1.1. A statement made alleging that the plaintiff has committed a crime for which he may have been imprisoned. 2.2.3.1.2.

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Aifa Syafinaz binti Muhammad Syafiq Sim
2017683686
LWBo2K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. The defendant employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land.

1.2. The contractors found disused mineshaft when digging but believed it was filled with earth and failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water.

1.3. Unknown to the defendant or the contractors, this mineshaft connected to the claimant's coalmine on neighbouring land.

1.4. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff's mines on the adjoining property.

1.5. The defendant had not been negligent, as he had trusted the independent contractors, yet he was liable for the damage to the claimant's land.

1.6. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision

2.1. The plaintiff must have some interest in the land that is affected.

3.1. The defendant must be the occupier who is in control of the land.

4.1. Consent

4.1.1. The rule does not apply to the escape of things brought by the defendant onto his premises with the consent of the plaintiff.

4.1.2. In such cases, the plaintiff will be limited to an action in negligence: VICTOR WESTON LTD v KENNY

4.1.3. The most common application of this defence is in the situation where water escapes on the upper storey of a building with several tenants.

4.2. Act of Stranger

4.2.1. Case: PERRY v KENDRICKS TRANSPORT LTD

4.2.2. The plaintiff must show "that the defendants reasonably should have anticipated an act of a kind which would cause the escape."

4.3. Act of God

4.3.1. Case: TENNENT v EARL OF GLASLOW

4.3.2. "An event which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility."

4.4. Default of the Plaintiff

4.4.1. Case: DUNN v BIRMINGHAM CANAL NAVIGATION

4.5. Statutory Authority

4.5.1. In some instances a statute may authorize the defendant to act in a manner that would involve liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

5.1. Defendant Brought Something onto His Land

5.1.1. Accumulation - The defendant must bring something onto his or her land for his or her own purposes that does not naturally occur there. The rule does not apply to things i.e. natural accumulation.

5.1.1.1. Case: -CROWHURST v AMERSHAM BURIAL BOARD -PONTING v NOAKES

5.2. Non-natural Use

5.2.1. Case: RICKARDS v LOTHIAN

5.2.1.1. Non-natural: "There must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and it must not be merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community".

5.3. Likely to Do Mischief

5.3.1. Case: HALE v JENNINGS, the proprietor of a chair O'plane was liable for the escape of a chair caused by a passenger tempering with it which cause the plaintiff to suffer injury.

5.3.2. 1.Escape

5.3.2.1. "Escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control" - Per Viscount Simon.

5.3.2.2. Case: READ v LYONS, this claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher failed because the dangerous thing did not escape.

5.3.3. 2. Foreseeability of Damage

5.3.3.1. The normal rules of causation apply, in that the damage must be reasonably foreseeable.

5.3.3.2. Case: CAMBRIDGE WATER CO. v EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
STRICT LIABILITY (RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
5.1.1.1. Case: -CROWHURST v AMERSHAM BURIAL BOARD -PONTING v NOAKES 5.2.1.1. Non-natural: "There must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and it must not be merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community".

# data[].attributes.body
Nur Aifa Syafinaz binti Muhammad Syafiq Sim
2017683686
LWB02K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.1. Employers are vicariously liable of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.

1.2. For instance, A is liable to C for the damage or injury suffered by C due to the negligence committed by B, A's employee.

2.1. (1) The master has the 'deepest pockets'. The wealth of a defendant, or the fact that he has access to resources via insurance, has in some cases had an unconscious influence on the development of legal principles.

2.2. (2) Vicarious liability encourages accident prevention by giving an employer a financial interest in encouraging his employees to take care for the safety of others.

2.3. (3) As the employer makes a profit from the activities of his employees, he should also bear any losses that those activities cause.

3.1. Wrongful or Tortious Act

3.1.1. The Court will first and foremost determine whether a tort has been committed.

3.2. Special Relationship

3.2.1. Control Test

3.2.1.1. Case: COLLINS v HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, "The distinction between a contract for services and a contract of service can be summarized in this way: In one case the master can order or require what is to be done, while in the other case he can not only order or require what is to be done, but how it shall be done."

3.2.1.2. Case: CASSIDY V MINISTRY OF HEALTH, Somervell LJ pointed out that this test is not universally correct

3.2.2. Organisation Test

3.2.2.1. Case: STEVENSON, JORDAN and HARRISON LTD v MCDONALD AND EVANS, 'It is often easy to recognize a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say wherein the difference lies.

3.2.3. Multiple Test

3.2.3.1. The courts then recognized that a single test was not enough to determine employment status so the courts developed a multiple test in READY MIXED CONCRETE v MINISTER OF PENSION, whereby all factors in the relationship should be considered.

3.3. The Course of Employment

3.3.1. This criteria is a question of fact, and it is immaterial whether the wrong committed by the employee was authorized or not.

3.3.2. Case: LISTER v HESLEY HALL LTD, this case establishes that an employer cannot avoid liability by showing that an employee engaged in an intentional and unauthorized wrongdoing.

4.1. An employer may be liable by his independent contractor if the employer is deemed to have committed a tort himself

5.1. The question is whether the agent is acting on behalf of, and within the scope of the authority conferred by the principal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
3.2.1.1. Case: COLLINS v HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, "The distinction between a contract for services and a contract of service can be summarized in this way: In one case the master can order or require what is to be done, while in the other case he can not only order or require what is to be done, but how it shall be done."

# data[].attributes.body
AIMAN NAJIHAH BINTI ZULKHAIRI
2017806922
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Ili Fatini Ishark
2017807042
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.body
Ili Fatini Ishark
2017807042
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.body
FARAH IZZATI BT MOHD DIN
2016239242
LWBO2I

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Nur Amirah binti Noor Azlan
Id: 2017678146
Grou

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/z3FA2kALScU

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/d9gwmyPMByM

# data[].attributes.body
AIN MUNIRAH BINTI AZNAN
2016239212
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
NURNAJIHAH BINTI MAT RANI
2016239132
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
NURNAJIHAH BINTI MAT RANI
2016239132
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Maszatul Ikmal Bin Mat Nordin
2017678338
LWB02J

# data[].attributes.body
NURNAJIHAH BINTI MAT RANI
2016239132
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Maszatul Ikmal Bin Mat Nordin
2017678338
LWB02J

# data[].attributes.body
NURNAJIHAH BINTI MAT RANI
2016239132
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
Maszatul Ikmal Bin Mat Nordin
2017678338
LWB02J

# data[].attributes.body
NURNAJIHAH BINTI MAT RANI
2016239132
LBW02I

# data[].attributes.body
Maszatul Ikmal Bin Mat Nordin
2017678338
LWB02J

# data[].attributes.body
Maszatul Ikmal Bin Mat Nordin
2017678338
LWB02J

# data[].attributes.body
Ili Fatini binti Ishark
2017807042
LWB02H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
Ili Fatini binti Ishark
2017807042
LWBO2H

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brainstorm online with Bubbl.us. Easily create colorful mind maps to print or share with others. Almost no learning curve. Millions of people are using Bubbl.us worldwide to generate ideas, map out processes and create presentations.

# data[].attributes.body
AIN MUNIRAH BINTI AZNAN
2016239212
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
AIN MUNIRAH BINTI AZNAN
2016239212
LWB02I

# data[].attributes.body
AIN MUNIRAH BINTI AZNAN 2016239212
LWB02I