1. ) LAU KWAI YOON 2. ) LAU CHOON MING v MAHANI BINTI MANSOR

Case Significance

Illustrates the role of silent evidence, such as sketch plans, vehicle damage and road marks, in resolving conflicting accounts of a road accident, and the restraint an appellate court exercises over a trial court's findings on liability and quantum absent an appealable error.

This High Court decision concerns an appeal against a Sessions Court's findings on liability and quantum in a personal-injury claim arising from a road accident between two motorcyclists. The appellant, who had suffered injury and disability in the accident, had sued the respondents for damages; the Sessions Court made findings on liability and assessed the damages, and the appellant appealed against both. The court set out the settled principle that, where the plaintiff and the defendant give different accounts of how an accident occurred, the court should turn to the silent evidence, namely the sketch plan, the photographs of the accident, the pattern of damage to the vehicles, broken glass and debris and the scratch marks on the road, to determine how the accident happened and where liability lies, citing authorities such as Yahaya bin Mohamad v Chin Tuan Nam. Because the parties' versions of the accident differed, the Sessions Court had relied on that silent evidence to reconstruct the accident and apportion liability, and the court held that this approach was correct and disclosed no appealable error. On quantum, the court was satisfied that the Sessions Court had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the special and general damages, including the various heads that made up the total award, and that there was no basis for appellate interference. Concluding that the appellant had not fully established the claim and that there was no appealable error in the Sessions Court's findings, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision below, with each party bearing its own costs. The court reiterated that an appellate court should be slow to substitute its own view for the assessment of a trial court that has seen and heard the witnesses and weighed the physical evidence, and that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not a ground for interference. The judgment is a useful illustration of the role of silent evidence in resolving conflicting accounts of a road accident, and of the restraint an appellate court exercises over a trial court's findings on liability and quantum.