1. ) LIM JUN WU 2. ) YEOH HOCK KOON v 1. ) TINAH BINTI OSMAN 2. ) NORFAIZAH BINTI KARIM
Outcome
I then dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants with the costs of RM5,000.00 subject to the allocator fees, to be paid by the Appellants to the Respondents within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Illustrates appellate restraint towards a personal-injury quantum, upholding an award absent misapprehension of facts or a wholly erroneous estimate, and confirms a tort victim's entitlement to private future treatment on the once-and-for-all basis of assessment.
This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an appeal against the quantum of damages awarded in a road-traffic personal-injury claim. The respondents, an injured motorcyclist and her daughter who had cared for her after the accident, had recovered damages in the Sessions Court against the appellants arising from a collision between two motorcycles, and the appellants appealed on the ground that the quantum awarded was manifestly excessive. The injuries included permanent disability and accelerated and aggravated osteoarthritis, and the award encompassed heads such as the cost of a domestic helper and future medical expenses. The court set out the principles governing appellate interference with an award of damages, under which it will not interfere unless the trial court misapprehended the facts or proceeded on a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. Reviewing the Sessions Court's grounds, the appeal record and the submissions, the court found no misapprehension of the facts and no wholly erroneous estimation of the loss that would justify appellate interference. On the contested question of future medical treatment, the court held that the victim of a tort is free to seek future treatment in a private hospital and should not be left in uncertainty about her future treatment and rehabilitation, and that whether she might instead resort to public healthcare is a matter of mitigation of damages on which the burden lies on the tortfeasor. It also reaffirmed that in Malaysia damages, including the cost of future care, are assessed on a once-and-for-all basis, so that the victim cannot return to court later for more should the injuries worsen, drawing on Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd v Fareed Reezal Arund. Finding the award neither manifestly excessive nor erroneous, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of appellate restraint towards a personal-injury quantum and of the tort victim's entitlement to private future treatment.
On what basis was the quantum challenged?
The appellants argued that the damages awarded by the Sessions Court for the motorcyclist's injuries, including permanent disability, accelerated and aggravated osteoarthritis, domestic-helper costs and future medical expenses, were manifestly excessive.
When will an appellate court interfere with a damages award?
Only where the trial court misapprehended the facts or proceeded on a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage; the court found neither here and declined to interfere.
How did the court treat future medical treatment and mitigation?
It held the tort victim is free to seek future treatment privately and should not be left in uncertainty, that resort to public healthcare is a matter of mitigation on which the tortfeasor bears the burden, and that damages are assessed once and for all; the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.
Cases Cited (7)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-12b-10-04-2024)