Muhammad Amirul Ashwad Bin Nazrul Ishsam v 1. ) CCP Builders Sdn Bhd 2. ) Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd 3. ) Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad PIHAK KETIGA Mohamad Zhafran Bin Mohamad Taufik BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK Jabatan Peguam Negara

ba-23ncvc-54-11-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 30 July 2025 • BA-23NCvC-54-11/2022 • 29 min read
16 cases cited (0 SG, 16 foreign)

Outcome

Pre trial loss dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga tarikh keputusan selama 7 tahun : RM1500 x 84 bulan: RM126,000 dibenarkan. Kos penjagaan plaintif 81. Bagi kos penjagaan plaintif, peguam cara plaintif telah menggunakan jangka hayat 72 tahun mengikuti statistik jangka hayat rakyat Malaysia dengan kos penjagaan RM1000 sebulan. Pada hemat Mahkamah, kos penjagaan ini yang diberikan oleh ahli keluarga adalah munasabah jika.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-23ncvc-54-11-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

TORT KECUAIAN: Tuntutan gantirugi terhadap defendan-defendan berikutan kemalangan pada 9.7.2018 yang mengakibatkan plaintif mengalami kecacatan kekal. Defendan pertama dilantik oleh defendan kedua kerja-kerja pengorekan dan pengalihan tanah berdekatan Jalan Pekeliling KM8.4 KLIA. Defendan Kedua adalah anak syarikat milikan penuh defendan ketiga. Defendan Kedua meletakkan penghadang jalan di laluan km 8.4 dan berlaku kemalangan akibat motorsikal yang ditunggang oleh Pihak Ketiga merempuh penghadang tersebut dan mengakibatkan kecederaan kepada plaintif, pembonceng motorsikal – Sama ada plaintif terlibat dalam kemalangan pada 9.7.2018 sebagaimana diplidkan – Sama ada defendan pertama mempunyai tugas berhati-hati dalam memastikan pengguna jalan raya di KM 8.4 atau berhampiran lokasi kerja projek terlindung dari bahaya – Sama ada defendan pertama, kedua dan/atau ketiga cuai dalam meletakkan atau mengendalikan penghadang jalan di Jalan Pekeliling KM 8.4 KLIA dengan tanpa apa-apa amaran atau amaran yang mencukupi – Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga mempunyai kawalan dan penyeliaan langsung atau tidak langsung terhadap kerja-kerja defendan pertama - Sama ada defendan kedua dan ketiga bertanggungan terhadap kecuaian defendan pertama – sama ada Pihak Ketiga bertanggungan bersama atau cuai sumbang menyebabkan kemalangan dan kecederaan yang dialami oleh plaintif – Sama ada plaintif membuktikan kerugian dan berhak terhadap ganti rugi am akibat kecederaan trauma otak dan gantirugi khas termasuk kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan. UNDANG-UNDANG KETERANGAN: Beban bukti terletak di bahu plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutannya – Seksyen 101 and 103 Akta Keterangan 1950.

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (6)

Case Significance

Illustrates the liability of a contractor and a site owner for a road hazard created by construction works where a barrier is placed without adequate warning, and the assessment of damages for a traumatic brain injury resulting in permanent disability.

This High Court decision concerns a negligence claim by a motorcycle pillion rider who suffered permanent disability in an accident with a road barrier at a construction site near an airport perimeter road. On the evening of the accident, the plaintiff was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle ridden by the person later named as a third party; as they travelled along the perimeter road, the motorcycle struck a road barrier and the plaintiff was seriously injured, leaving him with permanent disability and registered as a person with a disability. The first defendant was a contractor authorised by the second defendant, a wholly owned subsidiary of the third defendant, to carry out excavation and earth-moving works on land beside the road, and had placed the barrier across the road to allow its lorries to enter and leave the site. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was caused by the sudden encounter with the barrier placed on the road without adequate warning. The court examined whether the first defendant owed and breached a duty of care to road users near the works, whether the second and third defendants had direct or indirect control and supervision over the works so as to be liable for the contractor's negligence, and whether the third-party rider was contributorily negligent. It held the first and second defendants liable in negligence for placing or managing the road barrier without adequate warning, and dismissed the defendants' claim against the third-party rider. On damages, given the plaintiff's brain injury and permanent disability, which were not in dispute, the court awarded general damages of RM424,000, together with future treatment costs and costs of the action. The judgment is a useful illustration of a contractor's and site owner's liability for a road hazard created by construction works, and of the assessment of damages for a traumatic brain injury resulting in permanent disability.

Who was held liable for the accident caused by the road barrier?

The court held the first defendant, the contractor that placed the barrier, and the second defendant, the site owner that engaged it, liable in negligence for placing or managing the road barrier across the perimeter road without adequate warning to road users, and it dismissed the defendants' claim against the third-party motorcycle rider.

What damages did the injured pillion rider recover?

Given the plaintiff's traumatic brain injury and resulting permanent disability, which were not in dispute, the court awarded general damages of RM424,000, together with future treatment costs and costs of the action, to be paid by the first and second defendants.

Cases Cited (16)

UK (1)
[1990] 2 AC 605
MY (15)
[1977] 2 MLJ 103 [1983] 2 MLJ 324 [2000] 4 CLJ 324 [2003] 8 CLJ 729 [2004] 5 CLJ 479 [2004] AMEJ 0087 [2015] 4 MLJ 734 [2015] 7 CLJ 1008 [2017] MLJU 2335 [2018] MLJU 444 [2020] MLJU 2172 [2021] MLJU 199 [2022] MLJU 1186 [2022] MLJU 3813 [2024] MLJU 1926

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-23ncvc-54-11-2022)