NORSHAHRIZAL BIN ZURAIMI v 1. ) MUHAMAD SAIFUL ADHA BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) HASSAN BIN SAKIH

Case Significance

Confirms that leave to appeal under section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 requires a prima facie case of error, and that an appellate court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact where the trial judge acted on the available evidence and the losing party's version was inherently improbable.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 in a motor-accident claim. The applicant had been the plaintiff in a claim arising from a road accident in which a person had died; his claim had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, and that dismissal had been affirmed by the High Court, giving rise to concurrent findings against him. Seeking to take the matter further, the applicant needed leave, and confined his argument to the issue of liability. The Court examined whether a prima facie case of error had been shown that would warrant it intervening to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below. It found that the trial judge had acted on the available evidence and had been entitled to conclude that the applicant's version of events was not inherently probable. The applicant's account — that the accident was caused when the defendant's motorcycle collided with the rear of the applicant's motorcycle, which then collided with the deceased's motorcycle — was undermined by inconsistencies between his own evidence, the police report, the photographs of the damage to the motorcycles and the evidence of the investigating officer, none of which sat comfortably with his version. Because the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and credibility disclosed no prima facie error, and because an appellate court will not lightly interfere with concurrent findings of fact, the Court held that the applicant had failed to satisfy the legal threshold for the grant of leave. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The decision reflects the demanding threshold that governs a further appeal: leave will not be granted merely because a party disagrees with the outcome below, but only where a genuine and arguable error of law or fact is shown, and concurrent findings reached on the evidence carry particular weight against interference.