MOHAMAD SAKIRAN BIN AWANG v SOON FOO BOON

ja-12b-29-10-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 26 November 2025 • JA-12B-29-10/2024 • 15 min read

13 cases cited (0 SG, 13 foreign)

Outcome

(d) Rayuan Balas Responden ditolak sepenuhnya.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ja-12b-29-10-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Mahkamah Tinggi — Rayuan — Kemalangan jalan raya — Quantum — Liabiliti dipersetujui (90:10) — Prinsip sekatan campur tangan mahkamah rayuan (appellate restraint) — Campur tangan hanya jika misdirection / wrong principle / wholly erroneous estimate / award inordinately high atau inordinately low — Goh Pit Leng v Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd & Ors — Pang Ah Chee v Chong Kwee Sang — Pahang Lim Siong Motor Co & Anor v Cheong Swee Khai & Anor — United Plywood & Sawmill Ltd v Kock Ngan Loi — Kow Ah Dek v K Ratnasingam — Tan Kuan Yau v Suhirdinmani — Kovalan a/l Rajoo v Hanif bin Muhamad Pauzi. Ganti rugi am — Kecederaan ortopedik — Closed comminuted fracture right tibia/fibula — Laporan perubatan terkini — Keutamaan laporan terkini berbanding laporan lama — Muhamad Bin Sulaiman v Siti Naquiah — Muhammad Hanif bin Ishak v Mohamad Syazwan — Fraktur “well united” — Residual disability “mild” — Kembali bekerja — Award RM28,000 — Dalam julat munasabah — Tidak “inordinately high/low” — Award dikekalkan — Rayuan Balas untuk menaikkan award ditolak. Keterangan — Dokumen pendapatan — Seksyen 73A Akta Keterangan 1950 — Kebolehterimaan dokumen — Dokumen dipertikai tidak boleh digunakan tanpa dibuktikan keterimaan/ketulenan — Kaedah “tanda sebagai eksibit lalu kandungan dianggap benar” ditolak — Kewajipan panggil pembuat dokumen / reasonable efforts — Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd — Mahmod Kailan v Goh Seng Choon & Anor — Strict proof dokumen pendapatan — P4 & P5 dibatalkan sebagai eksibit; kekal sebagai ID — Analogi isu kebolehpercayaan sistem/rekod — Public Prosecutor v Chan Khee Hiang. Beban bukti — Seksyen 101–103 Akta Keterangan 1950 — Loss of earning — Kegagalan buktikan pendapatan sebenar tanpa dokumen yang diterima — Award RM52,255 dibatalkan. Loss of future earning / loss of earning capacity — Keperluan bukti material terhadap kebolehpasaran/risiko pekerjaan/penurunan pendapatan — Elak spekulasi — Chan Wai Tong v Li Ping Sum — Woo Yut Ching v Tang See Fong — Kembali bekerja — Disability “mild” — Tiada bukti risiko kehilangan kerja/penurunan gaji — Award RM20,000 dibatalkan — Rayuan Balas ditolak. Perintah — Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan sebahagian — (i) P4 & P5 dibatalkan sebagai eksibit (kekal ID); (ii) Loss of earning dibatalkan; (iii) Loss of future earning/capacity dibatalkan — Award tibia/fibula RM28,000 dikekalkan — Award lain Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan — Rayuan Balas ditolak sepenuhnya — Kos rayuan RM4,000.

Practice Areas

Evidence Tort Criminal Procedure

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (4)

Lovelace & Hastings Firm Teo & Associates Firm Samreet Singh Counsel Appellant Sarah Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Mohamad Sakiran bin Awang Appellant Soon Foo Boon Respondent

Case Significance

A quantum appeal on agreed 90:10 liability, decided on appellate-restraint principles that permit interference only for wrong principle or an inordinately high or low award.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru is an appeal in a road traffic accident claim in which liability had already been agreed between the parties in the proportion 90:10, so that the appeal was directed at the quantum of damages assessed by the Sessions Court. Both the main appeal and a cross-appeal were argued, and the Court considered them in a structured way against the appeal record, the Sessions Court's grounds, the parties' written submissions and their bundles of authorities.

The governing principle was appellate restraint. An appellate court does not re-assess damages afresh; it will interfere with a trial court's award only in defined circumstances — where the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law, misdirected itself, made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage, or arrived at an award that is inordinately high or inordinately low. The Court drew on the established line of authority on that standard, including Goh Pit Leng v Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd, Pang Ah Chee v Chong Kwee Sang and Kovalan a/l Rajoo v Hanif bin Muhamad Pauzi, which fix the narrow gateway through which an appellate court may revisit an assessment of personal-injury damages.

Applying that standard head by head, the Court examined the challenged awards and adjusted the quantum where it found the Sessions Court's assessment fell outside the permissible range, while leaving intact those heads that disclosed no error of principle or erroneous estimate. It ordered the respondent to pay the appellant costs of RM4,000.00. Following the decision, a further notice of appeal was filed. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the High Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction over a Sessions Court assessment, confines its intervention to awards that betray a wrong principle or an inordinately high or low estimate, and leaves agreed liability untouched where only quantum is in issue.

What was in issue on this appeal?

Liability had been agreed at 90:10, so the appeal and cross-appeal concerned only the quantum of damages assessed by the Sessions Court in a road traffic accident claim.

What standard did the Court apply to the quantum?

It applied appellate restraint, interfering with the assessment only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, misdirected itself, made a wholly erroneous estimate, or reached an inordinately high or low award, adjusting quantum where those limits were exceeded and ordering costs of RM4,000 to the appellant.

Cases Cited (13)

UK (1)

[1985] AC 446

MY (12)

[1962] MLJ 29 [1970] 2 MLJ 237 [1973] 1 MLJ 141 [1976] 2 MLJ 239 [1981] 2 MLJ 24 [1983] 1 MLJ 101 [1985] 1 MLJ 153 [1985] 2 MLJ 22 [1999] 1 MLJ 33 [1999] 4 MLJ 284 [2016] 2 CLJ 965 [2025] 6 CLJ 855

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-12b-29-10-2024)