Nur Syazila Binti Soleh Wan Nor Suhaizan Binti Khairuddin

Nur Syazila Binti Soleh Wan Nor Suhaizan Binti Khairuddin

The High Court found that the learned Magistrate had materially misappreciated and overlooked key contemporaneous evidence (medical reports, police reports, photographs and birth certificate) and had made erroneous factual findings; applying the plainly wrong test the appeal was allowed, the Magistrate's decision set aside, the Plaintiff's claim dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim allowed, with damages awarded to the Defendant totalling RM30,500, interest and costs.

Citation
AA-11B-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (defendant Below): Wan Nor Suhaizan binti Khairuddin; Respondent (plaintiff Below): Nor Syaliza binti Solleh
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 February 2022
Case Number
AA-11B-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (assault and Battery) / High Court Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Magistrate set aside; Respondent's claim dismissed; Appellant's counterclaim allowed; Respondent ordered to pay Appellant RM30,500 plus interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Assault and Battery, Appellate Review/plainly Wrong Test, Damages (general, Aggravated, Exemplary), Misappreciation of Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Assault and Battery Appellate Review/plainly Wrong Test Damages (general, Aggravated, Exemplary) Misappreciation of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Nor Suhaizan binti Khairuddin

Appellant (defendant Below)

Nor Syaliza binti Solleh

Respondent (plaintiff Below)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (assault and Battery) / High Court Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial Magistrate materially misappreciated the evidence such that appellate intervention is warranted
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant/Appellant was liable for assault and battery or entitled to succeed on counterclaim
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum and types of damages to be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the learned Magistrate had materially misappreciated and overlooked key contemporaneous evidence (medical reports, police reports, photographs and birth certificate) and had made erroneous factual findings; applying the plainly wrong test the appeal was allowed, the Magistrate's decision set aside, the Plaintiff's claim dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim allowed, with damages awarded to the Defendant totalling RM30,500, interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Magistrate set aside; Respondent's claim dismissed; Appellant's counterclaim allowed; Respondent ordered to pay Appellant RM30,500 plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • Magistrate's judgment dated 30 September 2020 set aside
  • Respondent/Plaintiff to pay Appellant/Defendant RM30,500