1. ) MUAMAL SHAFIQ BIN RAHATAN 2. ) C T HO TRANSPORT SDN BHD v MUHAMMAD FAUZI BIN ARSHAD

Case Significance

Illustrates the high threshold for appellate interference with a trial court's assessment of personal-injury damages, and the distinction between loss of future earnings and an award for loss of earning capacity based on a real risk of future unemployment.

This High Court decision at Muar concerns an appeal on quantum from a Sessions Court award in a road-accident personal-injury claim. The accident occurred on 7 September 2022 on the Johor Bahru–Seremban road, involving the respondent, who was riding a motorcycle, and the first appellant, who was driving a lorry owned by the second appellant, C T Ho Transport Sdn Bhd. After a full trial the Sessions Court found the defendants wholly liable (100%) and assessed general damages at RM67,000.00 and special damages at RM239,392.71. The defendants did not challenge liability but appealed against several heads of quantum, including the award for an open fracture of the left tibia and fibula, the awards for scarring, and an award of RM179,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.

The court set out the settled principles restraining appellate interference with an assessment of damages: an appellate court will not readily disturb the findings of a trial judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses unless the judge acted on a wrong principle of law, misapprehended the facts, or made a wholly erroneous estimate so excessive or insufficient as to indicate an error of principle. On loss of earning capacity, the court noted the distinction between loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity, the latter being awarded where there is a real, non-speculative risk that the plaintiff may be thrown out of work in future; the Sessions Court had been satisfied on the medical evidence and testimony that such a risk existed and had computed the award accordingly.

Finding no error of law or fact in the Sessions Court's assessment, and no basis to conclude that the awards were plainly wrong, the court held that this was not a case warranting appellate intervention. The appeal on quantum was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00. The judgment illustrates the high threshold for disturbing a trial court's assessment of personal-injury damages.