LIZAWATI BINTI MOHAMED HASSAN 1. ) MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ AIMAN BIN NORDIN 2. ) MOHAMAD AZRUL AMIRUL BIN AZMI

LIZAWATI BINTI MOHAMED HASSAN 1. ) MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ AIMAN BIN NORDIN 2. ) MOHAMAD AZRUL AMIRUL BIN AZMI

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate correctly found on the balance of probabilities that Defendant First was the driver (supported by his police admission) and Defendant Second, as registered owner who had leased the vehicle and received profit share, failed to rebut the presumption of owner liability;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-11B-9-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (second Defendant): Lizawati binti Mohamed Hassan; Respondent (plaintiff): Muhammad Syafiq Aiman bin Nordin; Respondent (plaintiff): Mohamad Azrul Amirul bin Azmi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
JA-11B-9-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Accident Claim) / Hearing on Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; magistrate's decision of 28.8.2023 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Owner Liability for Vehicle, Vicarious/agency Presumption, Lease/presumed Consent to Drive, Quantum of Damages, Medical Implant Removal Costs
Tort Road Traffic Law Contract (lease) Civil Procedure Owner Liability for Vehicle Vicarious/agency Presumption Lease/presumed Consent to Drive Quantum of Damages +1 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lizawati binti Mohamed Hassan

Appellant (second Defendant)

Muhammad Syafiq Aiman bin Nordin

Respondent (plaintiff)

Mohamad Azrul Amirul bin Azmi

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Accident Claim) / Hearing on Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant First was driver of vehicle WB2511X at time of accident
  2. 2 Whether registered owner (Defendant Second) is liable despite a fixed lease agreement
  3. 3 Whether lease/consent to third parties relieves owner of liability

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate correctly found on the balance of probabilities that Defendant First was the driver (supported by his police admission) and Defendant Second, as registered owner who had leased the vehicle and received profit share, failed to rebut the presumption of owner liability; further, the magistrate properly awarded RM7,500 for surgical removal of the implant based on expert evidence and appellate interference on quantum was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; magistrate's decision of 28.8.2023 affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Magistrate's decision dated 28.8.2023 affirmed