1. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AIMAN BIN SAAD HASSAN [No.K/P: 940811-03-5873] 2. MD HANIFFA BIN A IBRAHIM [NO. K/P: 450811-07-5179] MOHD FAUZAN BIN ISMAIL [NO. K/P: 881117-03-5673]

1. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AIMAN BIN SAAD HASSAN [No.K/P: 940811-03-5873] 2. MD HANIFFA BIN A IBRAHIM [NO. K/P: 450811-07-5179] MOHD FAUZAN BIN ISMAIL [NO. K/P: 881117-03-5673]

The magistrate did not err in accepting the respondent's oral evidence of employment and earnings given corroborative indicia; although the magistrate wrongly took judicial notice of local awning rates (a matter not of general knowledge), that error was harmless because the other admissible evidence supported the RM7,000 monthly earnings finding; consequently the appeal on quantum fails.

Citation
DA-11B-14-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AIMAN BIN SAAD HASSAN; Appellant/defendant: MD HANIFFA BIN A IBRAHIM; Respondent/plaintiff: MOHD FAUZAN BIN ISMAIL
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 August 2021
Case Number
DA-11B-14-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Accident Claim) / Decision on Appeal (quantum Issue)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages Loss of Earnings, Judicial Notice, Admissibility of Financial Evidence, Appeal on Quantum
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Evidence Civil Procedure Damages Loss of Earnings Judicial Notice Admissibility of Financial Evidence Appeal on Quantum

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AIMAN BIN SAAD HASSAN

Appellant/defendant

MD HANIFFA BIN A IBRAHIM

Appellant/defendant

MOHD FAUZAN BIN ISMAIL

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Accident Claim) / Decision on Appeal (quantum Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in accepting uncorroborated oral evidence of earnings
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate improperly took judicial notice of market rates for awnings
  3. 3 Whether the quantum awarded for loss of earnings was excessive or wholly erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate did not err in accepting the respondent's oral evidence of employment and earnings given corroborative indicia; although the magistrate wrongly took judicial notice of local awning rates (a matter not of general knowledge), that error was harmless because the other admissible evidence supported the RM7,000 monthly earnings finding; consequently the appeal on quantum fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of RM5,000.00 awarded to respondent subject to taxation