A.AIDIP BIN A.ZAIDI v 1. ) ZARIF ZAHIRUDDIN BIN ZALI 2. ) ZAITON BINTI ISMAIL

ta-12b-14-11-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 15 November 2025 • TA-12B-14-11/2024 • 43 min read
9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Outcome

The Defendant's Appeal is Allowed in Part.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ta-12b-14-11-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Tort – Negligence – Road traffic accident – Damages – Appeal against quantum – Personal injuries – Fractured clavicle with severe complications – Multiple surgical interventions – Wound dehiscence – Permanent functional impairment – Scarring – Future medical expenses – Shoulder brace – Neuropathic pain medication – Contributory negligence – Whether awards manifestly excessive – Whether awards supported by medical evidence – Principles of appellate intervention – Comparable authorities – Compendium as guideline – Application of legal principles to assessment of general and special damages – Cross-appeal for enhancement of damages and additional claim for spinal injury – Burden of proving causation – Whether claim for spinal injury established on balance of probabilities – Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal allowed in part. Courts – Appellate jurisdiction – High Court hearing appeal from Sessions Court – Scope of appellate interference with assessment of damages – When appellate court may interfere with trial judge’s award – Erroneous estimate of damages – Misapprehension of facts – Wrong principle of law – Role of Compendium of Awards for Personal Injuries – Guideline not statutory code – Consideration of inflation and economic changes – Observation of injured party in court as part of factual finding. Damages – General damages – Pain and suffering – Loss of amenities – Fractures – Malunion – Abrasions – Scars and disfigurement – Young claimant – Permanent disability – Special damages – Future medical expenses – Shoulder brace – Medication (Pregabalin) – Laser therapy and injections – Necessity and reasonableness of claim – Proof of actual need and usage – Speculative claims – Distinction between medical necessity and cosmetic enhancement – Double compensation – Contributory negligence – Apportionment of liability (90%/10%) – Recalculation of damages after appeal. Evidence – Medical evidence – Conflicting expert opinions – Orthopaedic surgeons – Plastic surgery expert – Hospital records – Most recent medical report – Weight of independent evidence – Causation – Spinal injury claim – Absence of contemporaneous evidence – MRI findings two years post-accident – Degenerative changes versus traumatic injury – Burden of proof – Balance of probabilities – Court’s preference for objective evidence over sympathy.

Practice Areas

Damages Tort Evidence

Judges (1)

Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff Delivered

Parties (3)

A.aidip bin A.zaidi Appellant Zaiton binti Ismail Respondent Zarif Zahiruddin bin Zali Respondent

Case Significance

A personal-injury quantum appeal reassessed head by head, cutting unsupported general and special damages, enhancing the scarring award, and rejecting a spinal-injury claim for want of proven causation.

This High Court decision is an appeal and cross-appeal on the quantum of damages awarded in a road traffic accident claim, following a Sessions Court assessment. The plaintiff had suffered significant personal injuries, principally a fractured distal right clavicle with severe complications requiring multiple surgical interventions, including wound dehiscence, together with permanent functional impairment and scarring. The defendant appealed, contending that various awards for general and special damages were manifestly excessive and unsupported by the medical evidence, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed seeking enhancement of certain heads.

The governing standard was the principle of appellate intervention in quantum: an appellate court will disturb a trial court's assessment only where an award is manifestly excessive or inadequate, is based on a wrong principle, or is not supported by the evidence, in particular the medical evidence. Applying that standard head by head, the Court made a series of adjustments. On general damages it reduced the award for the fractured clavicle with complications from RM70,000 to RM40,000 and the award for abrasions from RM10,000 to RM5,000, while enhancing the award for scarring from RM20,000 to RM25,000, bringing total general damages down from RM100,000 to RM70,000. On special damages it made substantial reductions where the claims lacked evidential support: the claim for a shoulder brace of RM135,000 was reduced to nil, the claim for neuropathic-pain medication (Pregabalin) from RM44,096 to RM2,920, and the claim for nutritious food and medicines of RM15,003 to nil. The plaintiffs' cross-appeal claim for a spinal injury was dismissed for insufficient evidence of causation, and heads not challenged on appeal were left undisturbed.

The Court allowed the defendant's appeal in part and allowed the plaintiffs' cross-appeal in part (the scarring enhancement) while dismissing it in part (the spinal-injury claim). The judgment is a useful illustration of how an appellate court revisits a personal-injury assessment head by head, insisting that each award be supported by the medical evidence and that causation be proved before a head of loss can stand.

What injuries and awards were in dispute?

The plaintiff had suffered a fractured distal right clavicle with severe complications, multiple surgeries, wound dehiscence, permanent impairment and scarring; the defendant said the general and special damages were manifestly excessive and unsupported by evidence, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed for higher awards.

How did the Court adjust the quantum?

It reduced general damages from RM100,000 to RM70,000 (clavicle RM70,000 to RM40,000, abrasions RM10,000 to RM5,000) while enhancing scarring to RM25,000, made large evidence-based cuts to special damages (shoulder brace and nutritious food to nil, Pregabalin from RM44,096 to RM2,920), and dismissed the cross-appeal spinal-injury claim for want of causation.

Cases Cited (9)

MY (9)
[1970] 2 MLJ 237 [1976] 2 MLJ 214 [1981] 1 MLJ 292 [1999] 4 CLJ 449 [2002] 1 CLJ 309 [2004] 5 CLJ 479 [2016] 2 CLJ 885 [2017] 2 CLJ 561 [2017] MLJU 761

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ta-12b-14-11-2024)