1. ) TSEN NYUK LIN 2. ) TSEN SOO KIAT DANIEL JEBARAJ A/L THAMARAISELVAM

1. ) TSEN NYUK LIN 2. ) TSEN SOO KIAT DANIEL JEBARAJ A/L THAMARAISELVAM

The Sessions Court's findings that the defendant was 100% liable and that the awards for general, special and future loss were appropriate were upheld because the defendant failed to attend to rebut plaintiff's credible evidence leading to a valid adverse inference under s114(g); the Sessions Court applied correct principles in assessing quantum and its discretionary awards were not plainly wrong or excessive.

Citation
JA-12B-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: TSEN NYUK LIN; Appellant/defendant: TSEN SOO KIAT; Respondent/plaintiff: DANIEL JEBARAJ A/L THAMARAISELVAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Case Number
JA-12B-47-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Adverse Inference for Non Attendance (s114(g) Evidence Act), Assessment of Damages, Loss of Earnings, Multiplier Method for Future Loss
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Civil Procedure Evidence Negligence Contributory Negligence Adverse Inference for Non Attendance (s114(g) Evidence Act) +3 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSEN NYUK LIN

Appellant/defendant

TSEN SOO KIAT

Appellant/defendant

DANIEL JEBARAJ A/L THAMARAISELVAN

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court was plainly wrong in finding defendant 100% liable and failing to consider contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act was properly invoked for defendant non-attendance
  3. 3 Whether awards for general damages (fracture and muscle wasting) were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court's findings that the defendant was 100% liable and that the awards for general, special and future loss were appropriate were upheld because the defendant failed to attend to rebut plaintiff's credible evidence leading to a valid adverse inference under s114(g); the Sessions Court applied correct principles in assessing quantum and its discretionary awards were not plainly wrong or excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original judgment of the Sessions Court dated 9.8.2022 affirmed