AHMAD VERI MUSAFIK 1. ) MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN MUHAMMAD 2. ) HT POWER CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

AHMAD VERI MUSAFIK 1. ) MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN MUHAMMAD 2. ) HT POWER CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Appellate court found no error in the Sessions Judge's factual findings or legal approach: evidence was balanced with no supporting or special evidence for either side, plaintiff failed to discharge the burden under s101 Evidence Act 1950 to establish defendants 100% liable, therefore the 50:50 apportionment of liability by the Sessions Court is affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal on liability is dismissed.

Citation
BA-12B-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Ahmad Veri Musafik; Respondent/defendant: Muhammad Firdaus bin Muhammad; Respondent/defendant: HT Power Construction Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Case Number
BA-12B-28-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Negligence) / High Court Appellate Hearing From Sessions Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal on liability dismissed; Sessions Court judgment apportioning liability 50:50 between Plaintiff and Defendants affirmed; no costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Burden of Proof (s101 Evidence Act 1950), Appellate Intervention (plainly Wrong Test), Liability Apportionment, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Negligence Road Traffic Accident Evidence Appellate Procedure Contributory Negligence Burden of Proof (s101 Evidence Act 1950) Appellate Intervention (plainly Wrong Test) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Veri Musafik

Appellant/plaintiff

Muhammad Firdaus bin Muhammad

Respondent/defendant

HT Power Construction Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Negligence) / High Court Appellate Hearing From Sessions Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in apportioning liability 50:50
  2. 2 Whether appellant proved defendants 100% liable
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff discharged burden of proof under s101 Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Appellate court found no error in the Sessions Judge's factual findings or legal approach: evidence was balanced with no supporting or special evidence for either side, plaintiff failed to discharge the burden under s101 Evidence Act 1950 to establish defendants 100% liable, therefore the 50:50 apportionment of liability by the Sessions Court is affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal on liability is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal on liability dismissed; Sessions Court judgment apportioning liability 50:50 between Plaintiff and Defendants affirmed; no costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal by Ahmad Veri Musafik on issue of liability dismissed
  • Sessions Court finding that Plaintiff and Defendants are each 50% liable is upheld