1. ) AZA AZRAA BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN OSMAN Rizirushdhianti Binti Rokim

1. ) AZA AZRAA BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN OSMAN Rizirushdhianti Binti Rokim

The High Court concluded the learned Magistrate demonstrated a failure to consider relevant evidence (notably the investigating officer's concessions and the physical damage to the motorcycles) such that appellate intervention was justified; accordingly the Magistrate's apportionment was varied and the First Appellant's liability was fixed at 10% with the Respondent 90% contributor to negligence.

Citation
BA-11B-13-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Aza Azraa bin Zainal Abidin; Appellant/defendant: Zainal Abidin bin Osman; Respondent/plaintiff: Rizirushdhianti binti Rokim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 April 2024
Case Number
BA-11B-13-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings on liability varied
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Appellate Intervention/plainly Wrong Test, Evaluation of Physical Evidence (bukti Senyap)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Motor Vehicle Accident Civil Procedure Evidence Law Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Appellate Intervention/plainly Wrong Test Evaluation of Physical Evidence (bukti Senyap)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aza Azraa bin Zainal Abidin

Appellant/defendant

Zainal Abidin bin Osman

Appellant/defendant

Rizirushdhianti binti Rokim

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the learned Magistrate erred in finding the Respondent/Plaintiff 40% contributor to negligence
  2. 2 Whether there was insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence to justify appellate intervention
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of liability between parties in a motorcycle collision

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court concluded the learned Magistrate demonstrated a failure to consider relevant evidence (notably the investigating officer's concessions and the physical damage to the motorcycles) such that appellate intervention was justified; accordingly the Magistrate's apportionment was varied and the First Appellant's liability was fixed at 10% with the Respondent 90% contributor to negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings on liability varied

Orders

  • Findings of the learned Magistrate on apportionment set aside and replaced: First Appellant liable for 10% and Respondent/Plaintiff liable for 90% contributory negligence
  • No order as to costs for this appeal