MUHAMMAD NOOR REDZUAN BIN MISRAN MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAFIZ BIN KHAIRULAZUIN

MUHAMMAD NOOR REDZUAN BIN MISRAN MUHAMMAD AMIRUL HAFIZ BIN KHAIRULAZUIN

The appeal was dismissed and the Appellant was held 100% liable because riding on a public road without a valid licence and insurance is unlawful and contrary to public policy; statutory scheme (s26, s90, s95 RTA) and the illegality doctrine operate to deny protection/coverage to an unlicensed/uninsured driver and justify denying recovery and fixing full liability on the Appellant while affirming the Sessions Court quantum (RM154,425).

Citation
JA-12B-18-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Muhammad Noor Redzuan bin Misran; Respondent/defendant: Muhammad Amirul Hafiz bin Khairulazuin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Case Number
JA-12B-18-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (road Traffic Negligence) / High Court Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Appellant held 100% liable; Sessions Court quantum of RM154,425 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Driving Without Licence, Third Party Insurance Coverage, Ex Turpi Causa (illegality) Defence, Duty of Care, Statutory Interpretation, Apportionment of Liability, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Road Transport Law Tort (negligence) Insurance Law Public Policy/illegality Doctrine Driving Without Licence Third Party Insurance Coverage Ex Turpi Causa (illegality) Defence Duty of Care +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Noor Redzuan bin Misran

Appellant/plaintiff

Muhammad Amirul Hafiz bin Khairulazuin

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (road Traffic Negligence) / High Court Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person riding a motorcycle without a valid driving licence is entitled to protection of the law and to recover in negligence
  2. 2 Whether statutory provisions (s26, s90, s95 Road Transport Act 1987) and public policy/illegality (ex turpi causa) preclude recovery or insurance cover where driver/rider is unlicensed and uninsured
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court's apportionment of liability should be disturbed and quantum varied

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed and the Appellant was held 100% liable because riding on a public road without a valid licence and insurance is unlawful and contrary to public policy; statutory scheme (s26, s90, s95 RTA) and the illegality doctrine operate to deny protection/coverage to an unlicensed/uninsured driver and justify denying recovery and fixing full liability on the Appellant while affirming the Sessions Court quantum (RM154,425).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Appellant held 100% liable; Sessions Court quantum of RM154,425 affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Liability fixed at 100% on Appellant/Plaintiff