ABD SAMAD BIN MURUAN APES HOLIDAYS SDN BHD LEE KAH WAI LIM MEI CHOO

ABD SAMAD BIN MURUAN APES HOLIDAYS SDN BHD LEE KAH WAI LIM MEI CHOO

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding of 100% liability because the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by independent witness evidence and corroborative documentary 'silent evidence' and were not plainly wrong; on quantum the High Court corrected legal errors by removing an unproven one-third deduction for living expenses when computing future loss of earnings and by applying a one-third discount to the multiplier for future supervisory care, resulting in revised damage awards.

Citation
BA-12B-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / 1st Defendant: ABD SAMAD BIN MURUAN; Appellant / 2nd Defendant: APES HOLIDAYS SDN BHD; Respondent / 1st Plaintiff: LEE KAH WAI; Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff: LIM MEI CHOO
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 September 2020
Case Number
BA-12B-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Liability affirmed for Plaintiffs; appeals on quantum partly allowed and partly dismissed; net monetary increase to Plaintiffs MYR 87,660.
Legal Topics
Liability, Quantum of Damages, Appellate Review, Plainly Wrong Test, Loss of Earnings, Future Supervisory Care, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Negligence Personal Injury Damages Civil Procedure Evidence Appeal Liability +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABD SAMAD BIN MURUAN

Appellant / 1st Defendant

APES HOLIDAYS SDN BHD

Appellant / 2nd Defendant

LEE KAH WAI

Respondent / 1st Plaintiff

LIM MEI CHOO

Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was negligent and 100% liable for the collision
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial judge's factual findings under the 'plainly wrong' test
  3. 3 Whether a one-third deduction for living expenses can be applied to future loss of earnings absent proof or admission

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding of 100% liability because the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by independent witness evidence and corroborative documentary 'silent evidence' and were not plainly wrong; on quantum the High Court corrected legal errors by removing an unproven one-third deduction for living expenses when computing future loss of earnings and by applying a one-third discount to the multiplier for future supervisory care, resulting in revised damage awards.

Court Disposition

Liability affirmed for Plaintiffs; appeals on quantum partly allowed and partly dismissed; net monetary increase to Plaintiffs MYR 87,660.

Orders

  • Affirmed Sessions Court finding that Defendants are 100% liable for the accident
  • Reduced post-trial costs of supervisory care from MYR 367,200.00 to MYR 244,800.00