1. ) Fazrien Hasrizan Bin Mohamad 2. ) Mohamad Bin Abdul Razak v 1. ) Selia Selenggara Selatan Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pengarah, Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Sembilan 3. ) Khairul Rohaizad Bin Rostam 4. ) Mohd Ramizu Bin Salim

Case Significance

Illustrates that an appellate court will not disturb a Sessions Court's findings on liability and quantum in a running-down action where the awards are supported by evidence and the strict-proof requirement for special damages is observed.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia and sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, concerns an appeal against a Sessions Court judgment in a personal-injury claim arising from a road accident. The first plaintiff — a person of impaired capacity suing through his father as next friend — had been riding a motorcycle in the early hours when he struck a road divider and then a motor car that was parked on the shoulder of the road, owned by the fourth respondent and driven by the third respondent. The plaintiffs sued the contractor responsible for road maintenance, the Director of the Public Works Department (JKR) for the State, and the car's driver and owner. The Sessions Court decided against the plaintiffs, and they appealed on both liability and quantum. On liability, the plaintiffs argued that the Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and fact in finding that they had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants. On quantum, the appeal challenged the awards, including special damages. The High Court held that the Sessions Court Judge had properly exercised her discretion: the awards under the special-damages head, though pleaded, were subject to the principle that special damages must be pleaded with particularity and proved strictly, and the judge had reasonably grounded each award on supporting evidence such as medical reports confirming the plaintiff's condition and the need for orthopaedic aids and care. Finding the trial judge's findings supported and appropriate, the court affirmed the Sessions Court's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment illustrates the appellate treatment of concurrent findings on liability and the strict-proof requirement for special damages in a running-down action. The court reiterated that appellate interference with a trial court's assessment of liability and quantum is confined to cases of misdirection in law or fact or findings unsupported by evidence, neither of which had been made out on the record before it.