1. ) NORHISYAM BIN AZMIN 2. ) SFRESH TRADING SDN BHD RUBI SAMSUDDIN BIN MAT TAJUDDIN

1. ) NORHISYAM BIN AZMIN 2. ) SFRESH TRADING SDN BHD RUBI SAMSUDDIN BIN MAT TAJUDDIN

The respondent's notice of cross-appeal was incompetent and struck out because it constituted an attack on the whole Sessions Court judgment and should have been brought by way of appeal; the Sessions Court's apportionment of liability at 50/50 was not plainly wrong and was maintained; the High Court varied the award for loss of future earnings after reassessing the proper basic salary and allowance, reducing the monthly award to RM1,000 and applying the agreed multiplier, and ordered costs to the appellants.

Citation
AA-12B-8-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: NORHISYAM B. AZMIN; Appellant/defendant: SFRESH TRADING SDN. BHD.; Respondent/plaintiff: RUBI SAMSUDDIN BIN MAT TAJUDDIN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Case Number
AA-12B-8-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; Sessions Court finding of 50/50 liability maintained; damages for loss of future earnings varied.
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Cross Appeal Competency, Liability Apportionment, Damages Assessment, Quantum Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Law Tort Civil Procedure Personal Injury Appeal Procedure Cross Appeal Competency Liability Apportionment Damages Assessment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NORHISYAM B. AZMIN

Appellant/defendant

SFRESH TRADING SDN. BHD.

Appellant/defendant

RUBI SAMSUDDIN BIN MAT TAJUDDIN

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a respondent seeking to overturn the trial judge's entire finding of liability must file a notice of appeal rather than a notice of cross-appeal
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's notice of cross-appeal was competent when seeking 100% liability instead of 50%
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court finding of 50/50 liability was plainly wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's notice of cross-appeal was incompetent and struck out because it constituted an attack on the whole Sessions Court judgment and should have been brought by way of appeal; the Sessions Court's apportionment of liability at 50/50 was not plainly wrong and was maintained; the High Court varied the award for loss of future earnings after reassessing the proper basic salary and allowance, reducing the monthly award to RM1,000 and applying the agreed multiplier, and ordered costs to the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; Sessions Court finding of 50/50 liability maintained; damages for loss of future earnings varied.

Orders

  • Notice of Cross-Appeal by the Respondent struck out and the Respondent's cross-appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appeal by the Appellants allowed in part by varying the award for loss of future earnings to RM1,000 per month to be multiplied by 7.5 years as determined