1. ) KUMAR A/L SUPRAMANIAN 2. ) ANNALETCHUMI A/P KRISHNAN 1. ) KHAIRUL NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NUR AISYAH BINTI RASHID

1. ) KUMAR A/L SUPRAMANIAN 2. ) ANNALETCHUMI A/P KRISHNAN 1. ) KHAIRUL NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NUR AISYAH BINTI RASHID

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court because the latest orthopaedic specialist reports were more credible than orthotist/prosthetist reports, plaintiffs failed to strictly prove special damages and future loss of earnings (no documentary proof or relevant witnesses and no mitigation), therefore the quantum awarded at trial is appropriate and the appeals on quantum lack merit.

Citation
NA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/perayu: KUMAR A/L SUPRAMANIAN; Plaintiff/perayu: ANNALETCHUMI A/P KRISHNAN; Defendant/responden: KHAIRUL NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH; Defendant/responden: NUR AISYAH BINTI RASHID
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 September 2024
Case Number
NA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 19.12.2022 affirmed by High Court
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Orthotic Device Claims, Loss of Future Earnings, Assessment of Expert Evidence, Apportionment of Liability
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Personal Injury Motor Accident Law Civil Procedure Quantum of Damages Orthotic Device Claims Loss of Future Earnings Assessment of Expert Evidence +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KUMAR A/L SUPRAMANIAN

Plaintiff/perayu

ANNALETCHUMI A/P KRISHNAN

Plaintiff/perayu

KHAIRUL NIZAM BIN ABDULLAH

Defendant/responden

NUR AISYAH BINTI RASHID

Defendant/responden

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orthotic devices claimed are recoverable and quantum appropriate
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs proved loss of future earnings and entitlement to future income loss awards
  3. 3 Which expert medical reports should be preferred where there are conflicting reports

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court because the latest orthopaedic specialist reports were more credible than orthotist/prosthetist reports, plaintiffs failed to strictly prove special damages and future loss of earnings (no documentary proof or relevant witnesses and no mitigation), therefore the quantum awarded at trial is appropriate and the appeals on quantum lack merit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 19.12.2022 affirmed by High Court

Orders

  • Notices of Appeal (Lampiran - 1) dismissed
  • Notice of Cross-Appeal (Lampiran - 7) dismissed