1. ) Nik Muhammad Haziq Bin Nik Hatim 2. ) Rokei Bin Safi-in v Lim Zi Hwei

Case Significance

Confirms that damages for personal injury must be supported by medical evidence: an award unsupported by proof of the injury will be set aside on appeal, and mere bills or an absence of cross-examination cannot supply the missing proof.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal in a road-traffic personal-injury claim confined to the quantum of general damages, and it turns on the requirement to prove personal injuries by medical evidence. Liability for the accident was not in dispute; the appeal by the defendants challenged the Sessions Court's awards of general damages for three injuries said to have been suffered by the plaintiff — a cerebral concussion (head injury), a waist injury, and a stomach or abdominal injury. The defendants contended that the awards were excessive and unsupported by the medical evidence, while the plaintiff maintained that they were fair and justified.

The court examined the medical foundation for each award. For the head injury it noted that the concussion was recorded with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15/15, with no intracranial injury and no residual disability, so that the award made below was excessive and warranted appellate reduction. For the waist and abdominal injuries the court found there was no medical evidence establishing either injury; reliance had been placed solely on bills for procedures said to have been undertaken. It held that bills alone are insufficient to prove the existence of an injury, and that the fact witnesses were not cross-examined does not cure the absence of proof, because the law requires personal injuries to be established by medical evidence. On that footing the absence of the notes of evidence made no difference to the outcome.

The court allowed the appeal, reduced the general damages for the head injury to RM6,000, set aside the awards for the waist and stomach injuries entirely, and ordered the respondent to pay costs of RM5,000. The judgment illustrates that damages for personal injury must be underpinned by medical evidence: an award unsupported by proof of the injury will be set aside, and mere bills or an absence of cross-examination cannot supply the missing proof.