AHMAD NIZAR SHAH BIN MOHD PERWIRA SHARIFFUDIN 1. HARUN BIN SHAHDAN 2.EXOMURNI SDN BHD

AHMAD NIZAR SHAH BIN MOHD PERWIRA SHARIFFUDIN 1. HARUN BIN SHAHDAN 2.EXOMURNI SDN BHD

Plaintiff's appeal on liability was allowed because there was no basis to apportion contributory negligence to the plaintiff given the finding that the defendants' motor‑tractor cut across his path; the defendants were held wholly liable. The defendants' appeal succeeded only in respect of the Grade II right PCL laxity because the plaintiff's specialist could not confirm causation. The Sessions Court did not err in admitting and relying on pay‑slips and medical documents as business records and in the assessment of loss of earnings.

Citation
JA-12B-23-02/2020 DAN JA-12B-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Ahmad Nizar Shah bin Mohd Perwira Shariffudin; Respondent/defendant: Harun bin Shahdan; Respondent/defendant: Exormurni Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Case Number
JA-12B-23-02/2020 DAN JA-12B-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court on Issues of Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal allowed on liability; Defendants' appeal allowed in part (award for Grade II right PCL laxity set aside)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Contributory Negligence, Admissibility of Business Records, Assessment of Damages, Statutory Highway Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Negligence Apportionment of Contributory Negligence Admissibility of Business Records Assessment of Damages +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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Nizar Shah bin Mohd Perwira Shariffudin

Appellant/plaintiff

Harun bin Shahdan

Respondent/defendant

Exormurni Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court on Issues of Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in apportioning 10% contributory negligence to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether allegations of speeding and lack of licence justified apportionment of liability
  3. 3 Whether the Grade II right PCL laxity was proved to have been caused by the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's appeal on liability was allowed because there was no basis to apportion contributory negligence to the plaintiff given the finding that the defendants' motor‑tractor cut across his path; the defendants were held wholly liable. The defendants' appeal succeeded only in respect of the Grade II right PCL laxity because the plaintiff's specialist could not confirm causation. The Sessions Court did not err in admitting and relying on pay‑slips and medical documents as business records and in the assessment of loss of earnings.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal allowed on liability; Defendants' appeal allowed in part (award for Grade II right PCL laxity set aside)

Orders

  • Apportionment of liability against the Plaintiff set aside; Defendants held 100% liable for the accident
  • Defendants' appeal allowed insofar as the award for Grade II right PCL laxity is set aside