1. ) MUHAMMAD IQMAL HAFIDZI BIN JAMALUDIN 2. ) UNICOM EVENT MARKETING v SYAMZY ADAM BIN SHAMSUDIN

Case Significance

Illustrates appellate reassessment in a running-down claim: objective vehicle-damage evidence displaced an all-or-nothing finding to yield an 80:20 apportionment for contributory negligence, and a personal-injury award was reduced where the latest expert report did not support it.

This High Court decision is an appeal from the Sessions Court in a road-accident (running-down) claim, brought by the two appellants — an individual driver and Unicom Event Marketing, the registered business that owned the lorry — against the Sessions Court's decision, which is now on further appeal. The respondent, a motorcyclist and a natural person, is referred to here by role. The accident occurred on 28 May 2022 on the North–South Expressway when the respondent's motorcycle collided with the rear of the appellants' lorry.

The appeal turned on two issues identified by the court: liability (including contributory negligence) and quantum (including alleged overlapping of damages awards). On liability, the Sessions Court had placed 100% blame on the appellants. The High Court reassessed the evidence, giving weight to the objective “silent evidence” of the vehicle-damage photographs and the “rear impact” mechanism, and to the competing versions of how the collision occurred as the respondent sought to change lanes. It declined to accept an even 50:50 split, holding that the case was not left in equal doubt once tested against the photographic evidence, and instead apportioned liability at “80% (Perayu-Perayu):20% (Responden)” on the basis of the respondent's contributory negligence (“sumbang cuai”).

On quantum, the court adjusted two heads. It reduced award No.1 from RM180,000 to RM100,000 because the most recent expert medical report did not support the higher figure, and it subjected awards No.3 to No.7 to a 15% deduction for overlapping (“pertindanan”). The remaining awards were maintained. Reflecting this partial success (“mengubah sebahagian dan mengekalkan sebahagian”), the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants costs of RM5,000.

The judgment is a useful illustration of appellate reassessment in motor-accident claims: the use of objective vehicle-damage evidence to displace a trial court's all-or-nothing apportionment, and the reduction of a personal-injury award where the latest expert evidence does not sustain it.