MOHD FIRDAUS BIN DOLLAH v 1. ) MUHAMMADI BIN YUSOFF 2. ) MUHAMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN AKROLRAJIL

Case Significance

Instructive on the procedural limits of a cross-appeal in the High Court, applying Kabushiki Kaisha Ngu to hold that a respondent must lodge a substantive appeal, not a cross-notice, to raise matters outside the appellant's notice of appeal.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu, Kelantan, is an appeal on quantum from a Sessions Court award in a road traffic accident claim. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident in July 2015; the driver died in the accident, and the plaintiff sued the driver's estate, sued through the first defendant as personal representative under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956, together with the registered owner of the car as the second defendant, the first defendant also having been the plaintiff's employer at the time. At trial the Sessions Court found the defendants wholly liable for the accident and awarded general and special damages, but declined the plaintiff's claims for loss of income and loss of future earning capacity. Dissatisfied only with that refusal, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court in respect of loss of income and future income, and the defendants filed a cross-appeal against quantum. The High Court, per Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff J, addressed a procedural objection to the defendants' cross-appeal, holding, on the authority of the Federal Court in Kabushiki Kaisha Ngu v Leisure Farm Corporation Sdn Bhd, that a cross-notice of appeal is not sufficient of itself to set an appeal on foot because it derives its validity from the appeal, so that where a respondent seeks to raise a matter not put in issue by the appellant's notice of appeal, a substantive appeal must be lodged. Because the defendants' cross-appeal raised matters outside the scope of the plaintiff's original appeal, the court held the cross-appeal to be defective and dismissed it. The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal on the loss-of-income heads and dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal, with costs. The judgment is instructive on the procedural limits of a cross-appeal and on appellate intervention in the assessment of loss of income in personal-injury claims.