BATHMANI A/P SUPPIAH v CIMB BANK BERHAD

Case Significance

Illustrates that where a trial court gives no reasons on a head of damages, the appellate court must evaluate that claim on the evidence itself, and shows the treatment of special and general damages on an assessment following an earlier determination of liability.

This High Court decision concerns cross-appeals against a Sessions Court's assessment of damages in a claim by a customer against a bank, following an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had determined liability in the customer's favour and remitted the matter for damages to be assessed. On assessment, the Sessions Court judge awarded the plaintiff general damages of RM250,000.00 with interest, dismissed the claim for special damages, and ordered costs against the bank. The plaintiff appealed against the entire decision, contending that the dismissal of special damages was wrong and that the general damages had been under-assessed, while the bank cross-appealed against the award of general damages and costs. A significant procedural point was that the Sessions Court judge had wrongly stated that the plaintiff had not appealed against the dismissal of the special-damages claim, when the notice of appeal was in fact directed at the entire decision, and had therefore given no reasons for that part of the decision. Because the court below had provided no grounds on special damages, the High Court itself evaluated the evidence and submissions on that issue. It allowed the plaintiff's appeal in respect of special damages and dismissed the bank's appeal against the award of general damages, while capping the total of general and special damages payable by the bank at RM1 million. On costs, it found no reason to disturb the Sessions Court's order and awarded the plaintiff costs of the appeals. The judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate court's role where the court below has failed to give reasons on a head of claim, requiring the appellate court to assess the evidence afresh, and of the treatment of special and general damages in an assessment following a determination of liability. It also shows the court willing to revisit a head of damages entirely on the record where the trial court left it unreasoned.