Badman Batty, construction contractors, are engaged by Crumbridgeshire County Council to resurface a 10-mile stretch of the Crumbridge ring road. Badman Batty hires a surface stripping machine in order to facilitate the work.

Bob, a surveyor, employed by the County Council, but on loan to Badman Batty decides he is capable of using the surface stripping machine but sets the controls in such a way that too deep a cut is made. As a result of this, the machine severs a water main and the road and a nearby power generator are flooded. The following parties claim damages for negligence:

a) Peter, a businessman, was driving on the ring road at the time of the incident and claims he has been prevented from attending a meeting at which he had high hopes of securing a 500,000 contract with another business;

b) Power-Green Ltd, the owners of the generator engulfed in water from the severed main claim in respect of the cost of repairing their damaged generator and the profit they would have made had the generator been operative during the five days it takes to effect repairs;

c) Plasticraft Ltd, the owners of a factory on an industrial estate supplied with electricity generated by Power-Green's incapacitated generator. Plasticraft's operations were interrupted for five days. They point to the fact that they had to dispose of a batch of plastic plates in process at the time of the power interruption. These are valued at 10,000. Moreover, the cost of cleaning congealed plastic from their machines is assessed at 2,500. Plasticraft also claim damages for loss of business profit on operations they could have carried on during the remainder of the five-day interruption to their power supply.

Advise Badman Batty of their potential liability in tort.

Would there be any difference to your answer in the application of the Malaysian law to the above?