MUHAMMAD IQBAL BIN AHMAD ROSLAN v 1. ) AmGeneral Insurance Berhad 2. ) LOGANATHAN A/L VELLAYATHAM 3. ) GOVINDAMAH A/P VEERAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the incidence of the burden of proof in a negligence action — the claimant must prove causation on a balance of probabilities under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 — and the dismissal of a claim where that burden is not met.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Choong Yeow Choy J in its appellate jurisdiction, concerns an appeal in a negligence action arising from a road accident. It was not disputed that the appellant, the plaintiff in the Sessions Court, had sustained injuries; the fundamental issue was whether those injuries had been caused by the negligence of the first respondent, the driver, with the second respondent and the third respondent (an insurer) also joined. The Sessions Court had decided against the plaintiff, and he appealed.

The Court restated the governing burden of proof. In a negligence action the initial burden rests on the plaintiff to establish his case on a balance of probabilities, in accordance with sections 101 and 102 of the Akta Keterangan 1950 (sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950) and the Federal Court's decision in Wong Thin Yit. The Court observed that, while the record disclosed elements suggestive of dishonesty, fabrication or fraudulent intent, the principal question remained whether, on the totality of the evidence, the injuries the plaintiff sustained were in fact occasioned by the first respondent's negligence.

Assessing the whole of the evidence against that standard, the Court was not persuaded that the plaintiff had discharged his burden of proving that his injuries were caused by the first respondent's negligence. It affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal, ordering the plaintiff to pay costs of RM5,000 to the third respondent in respect of the appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the incidence of the burden of proof in a negligence action — that the claimant must prove causation on a balance of probabilities under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 — and of the dismissal of a claim where that burden is not met, notwithstanding suggestions of dishonesty in the record.