Scribd
Upload
117 views

Memo Edit

This document outlines the respondent's submissions in a court case between Adele Simone Ramone and Dr. Stephen Strange. 1) The respondent had close ties and affection with the victim and the presumption of a parental relationship is rebuttable. 2) The respondent suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a recognized psychiatric disorder in Malaysia, rather than negligently inflicted emotional distress. The document also lists cases and treaties cited as authorities in the respondent's argument.

Uploaded by

Muhamad Aryn Rozali
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views

Memo Edit

This document outlines the respondent's submissions in a court case between Adele Simone Ramone and Dr. Stephen Strange. 1) The respondent had close ties and affection with the victim and the presumption of a parental relationship is rebuttable. 2) The respondent suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a recognized psychiatric disorder in Malaysia, rather than negligently inflicted emotional distress. The document also lists cases and treaties cited as authorities in the respondent's argument.

Uploaded by

Muhamad Aryn Rozali
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IN THE MOOT COURT OF UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA SHAH ALAM

BETWEEN

ADELE SIMONE RAMONE RESPONDENT


AND

DR. STEPHEN STRANGE APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS

(B) RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION


1.0 Respondent had close ties of love and affection with the victim.
1.1 The parental presumption of relationship by blood is not necessary and
rebuttable.

2.0 Respondent had suffered from a recognized psychiatric disorder and not negligently
inflicted emotional distress.
2.1 In Malaysia, PTSD is a recognized psychiatric disorder.
2.2 NIED is a different term to address nervous shock in the States, which holds
similar meaning to psychiatric disorder.

RESPONDENTS LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
1. McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
2. Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 4 All
ER 907
3. Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe Phing [1993] 3 SLR 317
4. Jaensch v Coffey [1984] 54 ALR 417
5. North Galmorgan NHS Trusts v Walters [2002] All ER (D) 87 (Dec)
6. McDaid v Snodgrass [2009] NICA 18
7. Jubil bin Mohamed Taib Taral & Ors v Sunway Lagoon SDN BHD [2001] 6 MLJ 669
8. Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912
9. Dooley v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd [1951] 1 Lloyds Rep 270
10. Farrell v Merton Sutton & Wandsworth Health Authority [2000] All ER (D) 1121

TREATIES
1. The New Law Journal/1993 Volume 143/Issue 6605, June/Articles/Post traumatic
stress disorder - 143 NLJ 878
2. Talib, Norchaya. Law of torts in Malaysia. Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2010.

You might also like