MOHD NAIM BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) MUHAMMAD ZULKIFLEE BIN ANWAR 2. ) ROSMANIDAR BINTI RUSLI

MOHD NAIM BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) MUHAMMAD ZULKIFLEE BIN ANWAR 2. ) ROSMANIDAR BINTI RUSLI

The appeal is dismissed because the High Court found the Sessions Court's 50:50 apportionment and the assessments of general and special damages (including RM2,766,791.25 for lifetime institutional care) were supported by the evidence and lawful application of principles; there was no basis to interfere with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CB-12B-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Mohd Naim bin Abdullah; Respondent: Muhammad Zulkiflee bin Anwar; Respondent: Rosmanidar binti Rusli
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 December 2022
Case Number
CB-12B-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Motor Vehicle Collision) / High Court (appeal From Sessions Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Sessions Court judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Liability Apportionment, Quantum of Damages, Care Costs, Apportionment of Negligence, Admissibility of Secondary Evidence
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Damages Evidence Liability Apportionment Quantum of Damages Care Costs +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Naim bin Abdullah

Appellant

Muhammad Zulkiflee bin Anwar

Respondent

Rosmanidar binti Rusli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Motor Vehicle Collision) / High Court (appeal From Sessions Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in apportioning liability 50:50 between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court erred in its assessment of quantum including separate awards for each injury and the award for lifetime 24‑hour institutional care

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the High Court found the Sessions Court's 50:50 apportionment and the assessments of general and special damages (including RM2,766,791.25 for lifetime institutional care) were supported by the evidence and lawful application of principles; there was no basis to interfere with findings of fact or the exercise of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Sessions Court judgment upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sessions Court judgment affirmed