Pathmanathan a/l Muthu 1. ) Saiful Shahril Bin Abdullah Sani 2. ) Dynamic Chef Services Sdn Bhd

Pathmanathan a/l Muthu 1. ) Saiful Shahril Bin Abdullah Sani 2. ) Dynamic Chef Services Sdn Bhd

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff's version of the accident more probable but that plaintiff was 30% contributorily negligent; defendants 70% liable. The court assessed quantum item by item relying on medical reports and the Compendium, allowed specified special damages (with one-third allowance for private future therapy/implant), rejected unproven future medical/surgical/care and loss of actual/future earnings, and ordered interest and costs as specified.

Citation
WA-B53KJ-57-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Pathmanathan a/l Muthu; Defendant 1 (driver): Saiful Shahril bin Abdullah Sani; Defendant 2 (registered Owner): Dynamic Chef Services Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 August 2023
Case Number
WA-B53KJ-57-10/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury (negligence) / Judgment on Liability and Quantum; Defendants' Appeal Dismissed (appeal Against 25.8.2023 Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial court's findings on liability and quantum upheld
Legal Topics
Liability Apportionment, Quantum of Damages, Contributory Negligence, Future Medical Expenses, Loss of Earning Capacity, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Negligence Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Liability Apportionment Quantum of Damages Contributory Negligence +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pathmanathan a/l Muthu

Plaintiff

Saiful Shahril bin Abdullah Sani

Defendant 1 (driver)

Dynamic Chef Services Sdn Bhd

Defendant 2 (registered Owner)

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Personal Injury (negligence) / Judgment on Liability and Quantum; Defendants' Appeal Dismissed (appeal Against 25.8.2023 Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were negligent and to what extent
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's version or defendants' version of accident is more probable
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between parties

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff's version of the accident more probable but that plaintiff was 30% contributorily negligent; defendants 70% liable. The court assessed quantum item by item relying on medical reports and the Compendium, allowed specified special damages (with one-third allowance for private future therapy/implant), rejected unproven future medical/surgical/care and loss of actual/future earnings, and ordered interest and costs as specified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial court's findings on liability and quantum upheld

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally liable for 70% of assessed damages; plaintiff held 30% contributory negligent
  • Damages assessed on 100% liability basis: general damages RM294000.00; special damages RM123966.00; total RM417966.00