VINESH A/L DEVADAS (NO. K/P : 750301-14-5047) CHIEW HANG ENG (NO. K/P : 720518-10-5807)

VINESH A/L DEVADAS (NO. K/P : 750301-14-5047) CHIEW HANG ENG (NO. K/P : 720518-10-5807)

The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal because the Sessions Court placed excessive weight on mitigation by selecting the cheaper prosthesis without properly considering the qualitative differences (titanium components, thicker gel liners, warranty, and functional needs) and the plaintiff's personal requirement to return to work; therefore the Sessions Court misapplied the relevant principles and the award for prosthesis was increased to RM875,125.00.

Citation
BA-12B-126-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: VINESH A/L DEVADAS; Respondent/defendant: CHIEW HANG ENG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Case Number
BA-12B-126-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court (judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court award set aside in part and increased
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Expert Report Weight, Award for Prosthesis, Appellate Interference
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Personal Injury Damages Medical Devices Evidence Expert Evidence Assessment of Damages Mitigation of Loss Expert Report Weight +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VINESH A/L DEVADAS

Appellant/plaintiff

CHIEW HANG ENG

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court (judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellate court should interfere with trial court's assessment of damages
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to the more expensive titanium prosthesis rather than a cheaper alternative
  3. 3 Proper weight to be given to mitigation of loss vs individual needs and quality of prosthesis

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal because the Sessions Court placed excessive weight on mitigation by selecting the cheaper prosthesis without properly considering the qualitative differences (titanium components, thicker gel liners, warranty, and functional needs) and the plaintiff's personal requirement to return to work; therefore the Sessions Court misapplied the relevant principles and the award for prosthesis was increased to RM875,125.00.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court award set aside in part and increased

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside Sessions Court award of RM356000.00 for prosthesis