BALACHANDAN A/L KITNASAMY 1. MD FAIZUDDIN MOLLA (PASSPORT NO: BC 0914082) 2. MOHAMMAD HIAS UDDIN (PASSPORT NO: Z 0827319)

BALACHANDAN A/L KITNASAMY 1. MD FAIZUDDIN MOLLA (PASSPORT NO: BC 0914082) 2. MOHAMMAD HIAS UDDIN (PASSPORT NO: Z 0827319)

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: the trial judge's factual findings (including liability apportioned at 50:50 and quantum awards) were not shown to be wrong or based on misdirection, the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient fresh evidence or rebut the adjuster and medical evidence indicating recovery, and non-appearance by the first defendant did not justify imputing full liability to him.

Citation
PA-12B-17-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Balachandran A/L Kitnasamy; Respondent/defendant: Md Faizuddin Molla; Respondent/defendant: Mohammad Hias Uddin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
PA-12B-17-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (motor Vehicle Accident/personal Injury) / Appellate Judgment (high Court)
Legal Topics
Liability Apportionment, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Fresh Evidence/admission of Additional Expert Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Negligence Liability Apportionment Contributory Negligence Quantum of Damages Fresh Evidence/admission of Additional Expert 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balachandran A/L Kitnasamy

Appellant/plaintiff

Md Faizuddin Molla

Respondent/defendant

Mohammad Hias Uddin

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (motor Vehicle Accident/personal Injury) / Appellate Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability should be apportioned 50:50 or otherwise between plaintiff and first defendant
  2. 2 Whether appellate court should disturb trial judge's factual findings and award on quantum
  3. 3 Whether fresh expert evidence should be admitted and relied upon

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: the trial judge's factual findings (including liability apportioned at 50:50 and quantum awards) were not shown to be wrong or based on misdirection, the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient fresh evidence or rebut the adjuster and medical evidence indicating recovery, and non-appearance by the first defendant did not justify imputing full liability to him.