TEO SHU THUNG ABEL A/L SELVANATHAN

TEO SHU THUNG ABEL A/L SELVANATHAN

P6 (investigation report) was admissible under section 73A(2) because the investigating officer was unavailable for a legitimate reason and further delay would have been caused; the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to establish that the defendant ran the red light; the defendant's failure to call evidence left the plaintiff's version unchallenged and shifted the evidential burden to the defendant, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the lower court's finding of 100% liability against the defendant is affirmed.

Citation
NA-12B-24-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: TEO SHU THUNG; Respondent/plaintiff: ABEL A/L SELVANATHAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Case Number
NA-12B-24-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal (liability)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence, Burden and Standard of Proof, Traffic Signal Violation
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Road Traffic Law Evidence Negligence Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Burden and Standard of Proof Traffic Signal Violation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEO SHU THUNG

Appellant/defendant

ABEL A/L SELVANATHAN

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal (liability)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in finding the plaintiff proved liability on the balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the investigation report (P6) was admissible despite the investigator not testifying
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's failure to give evidence meant the plaintiff's version remained unrebutted

Ratio Decidendi

P6 (investigation report) was admissible under section 73A(2) because the investigating officer was unavailable for a legitimate reason and further delay would have been caused; the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to establish that the defendant ran the red light; the defendant's failure to call evidence left the plaintiff's version unchallenged and shifted the evidential burden to the defendant, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the lower court's finding of 100% liability against the defendant is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent