Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages (general and special)

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2025

1. ) LAU KWAI YOON 2. ) LAU CHOON MING MAHANI BINTI MANSOR

Citation

RA-12B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-12B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed; appellate court found no error in the Sessions Court's factual findings or legal reasoning: liability properly apportioned 50:50 based on silent evidence and testimony, and the awards for general damages (RM553,500.00) and special damages (RM378,400.00) were properly supported by medical reports, expert evidence and exhibits and therefore are affirmed; costs to be borne by parties respectively.
31 Jan 2025

NUR SYAHIRAH BINTI AZIZ 1. ) MOHAMAD SALEHIN BIN SALLEH 2. ) SPANCO SDN. BHD

Citation

MA-A73KJ-397-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-A73KJ-397-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the defendant was negligent in turning into the junction without ensuring it was safe; the turning driver bore the greater duty of care and was 90% liable whereas the plaintiff was 10% contributorily negligent for failing to heed the yellow box (Rule 8A); damages awarded as assessed but subject to apportionment and statutory interest.
14 Nov 2024

1. ) KHARUDDIN BIN ALI 2. ) Wan Noordin Bin Wan Chik 3. ) Kamariah Binti Chik MOHAMAD NIZAM BIN SALEH

Citation

RA-22NCvC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-22NCvC-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant did not file answering affidavits, did not set aside the default judgment and provided no cogent justification for delay; therefore the court accepted the plaintiffs' affidavits on the balance of probabilities and awarded damages in the quantum claimed as reasonable; the defendant's application to file affidavit out of time was dismissed and exemplary damages were not awarded for lack of proof.
8 Nov 2023

FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD 1. ) DESTINE MEI SDN BHD 2. ) ZAINOL MAHARIQ BIN ZAINOL HARIS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-426-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-426-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved breach and entitlement to invoices under the 1st Agreement and estoppel applied because Defendants failed to object to invoices; the 2nd Agreement was validly terminated on 21.12.2019 per Plaintiff's notice so Plaintiff cannot claim amounts for the post-termination period beyond that date; general damages (special, quantifiable loss) were not pleaded and therefore disallowed; compounding interest disallowed where contract did not permit it; accordingly part of Plaintiff's claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed.
30 Oct 2023

1. ) MOHD ISMAIL BIN MARKOM 2. ) KASMINI BINTI SURATAL 1. ) SITI AISYAH BINTI ABDUL AZIZ 2. ) RAHIM BIN AHMAD

Citation

JA-A53KJ-326-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-326-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the defendant's version was more probable based on vehicle damage, initial police report and inconsistencies in plaintiff's subsequent accounts; the court found the motorcycle entered the defendant's lane when turning right and the left front of the defendant's car struck the front-right of the motorcycle. Liability was apportioned: plaintiff first 70% contributory negligence, defendant first 30% liable, plaintiff second not at fault. The court awarded damages and specific special damages as proven and reasonable, rejecting unproven speculative claims (private…
2 Feb 2023

BALAKRISHNAN A/L FUFALAN 1. ) TEE WEI PING 2. ) TEE HON MIN

Citation

JA-A53KJ-66-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-66-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff was primarily at fault for dangerously crossing the road; medical notes, absence of collision marks at plaintiff's claimed location, inconsistent statements and plaintiff's admission supported defendant's version. Liability apportioned 90% to plaintiff and 10% to defendant. Damages for injuries and specific losses were assessed on the admissible medical evidence and Compendium ranges; certain claimed items rejected for lack of evidence.
31 Jan 2023

VASANTHAN A/L LETCHUMANAN 1. ) JASON WONG KOK FUNG 2. ) WONG SWEE SING

Citation

AA-A53KJ-41-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A53KJ-41-02/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the evidence the court found two irreconcilable versions and insufficient objective indicators to prefer either side; IO opinion and Rule 10 summons under s121 RTA could not be treated as determinative; accordingly liability was apportioned 50:50. The court assessed general and special damages on the evidence, allowed reasonable future medical and prosthetic costs based on practicable options, and applied a one-third deduction for contingencies to future cost awards.
22 Sept 2022

MOHD ASHARI BIN A BAKAR 1. ) DEREK BIN JOHN 2. ) HIGHTRI MECHANICAL & INSULATION SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A53KJ-567-09/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-567-09/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on liability because his in-court testimony materially contradicted his earlier police report and pleaded particulars; the defendant's contemporaneous police report and courtroom evidence were consistent and more probable on the balance of probabilities, including physical damage consistent with defendant's version; accordingly plaintiff's case on negligence failed.
9 Mar 2022

Ong Jia Hao 1. ) Abdul Majid Bin Othman 2. ) Jamilah Binti Hashim

Citation

AB-A53KJ-186-11/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AB-A53KJ-186-11/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the physical evidence (damage pattern, debris and brake marks), witness evidence and inconsistencies made the defendant's account more inherently probable in key respects; plaintiff failed to prove 100% liability of defendants. The court apportioned liability 20% to defendants and 80% to plaintiff. Applying that apportionment the court awarded defendants 20% of assessed general and special damages: general RM60,800 (20% of RM304,000) and special RM75,367.20 (20% of RM376,836); ordered RM38,602.40 (20% of prosthesis component) to be held by Amanah Raya for prost…
27 Jan 2022

Telekom Malaysia Berhad 1. ) XXXX 2. ) SELIA SELENGGARA SELATAN SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12B-78-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-78-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's sudden evasive manoeuvre on a wet road constituted primary negligence (90%). The First Defendant as owner of the manhole breached a duty to ensure its manholes were safe and was 10% negligent. The Second Defendant was not liable because it only acted on instructions from Jabatan Kerjaraya and no such instruction existed; therefore the Sessions Court's liability apportionment was set aside and re-apportioned accordingly. General damages were upheld; certain special damages were reduced based on evidence and causation; interest orders were directe…