1. ) MOHAMMAD RASHID ISMAIL BIN RIZWAN 2. ) C & H ENGINEERING & TRANSPORT v MUHAMMAD HAREF BIN SAMSUDIN

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate court's reluctance to disturb a trial court's findings on liability and damages in a running-down action absent a demonstrated error of principle, and the compensatory purpose of a damages award.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an appeal on both liability and quantum from a Sessions Court judgment in a road traffic accident claim. The respondent, who was the plaintiff below, was riding a motorcycle when it was involved in a collision with a lorry driven by the first appellant and owned by the second appellant, a transport concern. According to the plaintiff's evidence, the accident happened when the lorry, travelling in the same direction behind him, overtook his motorcycle on the left and then suddenly turned right into a junction ahead, cutting across his path, and he suffered injury and loss as a result. The lorry driver denied negligence and blamed the plaintiff. After a full trial the Sessions Court accepted the plaintiff's account, found the appellants wholly responsible for the accident and awarded damages. On appeal the court's task was to decide whether the trial judge's findings on liability and the assessment of quantum were plainly wrong so as to justify appellate interference, bearing in mind that an appellate court is slow to disturb a trial court's findings of fact reached after seeing and hearing the witnesses. The court reviewed the appeal records and the parties' submissions, including how the accident was said to have occurred and the treatment of the medical evidence and heads of damage. It noted, on quantum, that awarding a proportion of the actual treatment costs was reasonable and consistent with the compensatory rather than punitive purpose of damages. Finding no basis to interfere with either the finding of full liability against the appellants or the quantum assessed, the court dismissed the appeal, making no order as to costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate court's reluctance to disturb a trial court's concurrent findings on liability and damages in a running-down action absent a demonstrated error of principle.