G Dorai & Co.

On the court record

G Dorai & Co. appears in the reported judgments as a personal-injury and motor-litigation practice, working mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with a matter in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and appearing overwhelmingly as counsel for appellants. Its corpus is dominated by road traffic accidents (kemalangan jalan raya) on appeal from the Sessions Court, in tort for negligence (kecuaian). The recurring questions are liability — whether and how fault is to be attributed between the parties — and the re-evaluation on appeal of the trial court's findings of fact, together with quantum, including whether an injured plaintiff who sustained serious injuries such as the amputation of limbs requires lifelong care and support and how that need is to be valued. The firm also appears in the procedural questions that attend such appeals, including leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 68(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Several of its matters are brought by an injured claimant appealing against a Sessions Court decision that dismissed or reduced the claim, which explains the firm's overwhelmingly appellant posture. The counterparties in the corpus include motor insurers such as Tokio Marine Insurance. Acting predominantly for appellants — most often injured claimants — the firm presents as a dedicated road-accident and personal-injury practice whose corpus turns on liability, the appellate re-evaluation of factual findings, and the assessment of quantum for serious and catastrophic injury, rather than on general commercial disputes. The matters involving lifelong care for a severely injured plaintiff are a particular feature, engaging the court in the careful assessment of future care costs and the multiplier by which they are calculated. The appellate re-evaluation of factual findings is a recurring theme, since an appellate court will generally defer to the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses unless the findings are shown to be plainly wrong, and the firm's corpus repeatedly puts that principle in issue on behalf of an injured claimant.