Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri

On the court record

Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri appears in the reported judgments as a personal-injury and motor-litigation practice, working entirely in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), most often on appeals from the Sessions Court. Its corpus is dominated by kemalangan jalan raya (road traffic accidents): claims in tort for kecuaian (negligence), the apportionment of liability including contributory negligence (sumbang cuai) — for example an 80:20 split reviewed on appeal — and appeals against the Sessions Court's findings on both liability and quantum (kuantum). Evidential questions recur, particularly the burden of proof under sections 101 and 102 of the Akta Keterangan 1950 (Evidence Act 1950) and the drawing of inferences where a party fails to establish an element of its claim. The firm also appears in fatal-accident claims brought by dependants of a deceased road user, and in procedural contests over the competency of a cross-appeal (rayuan balas) and the treatment of interlocutory applications. A more unusual matter in its corpus concerns proceedings against a litigant declared vexatious, where the court weighed the effect of existing High Court orders and federal gazette declarations. Its counterparties include motor insurers such as AmGeneral Insurance Berhad. Acting for both claimants and defendants — and frequently as respondent on appeal — the firm presents as a specialist road-accident and personal-injury practice whose corpus turns on liability, apportionment, the burden of proof and the quantification of accident-related loss, rather than on general commercial disputes. In its liability appeals the recurring question is whether the Sessions Court correctly attributed fault as between the parties on the evidence of how the collision occurred, and in its quantum appeals whether the awards for the injuries proved were consistent with the established ranges. Fatal-accident claims brought by the dependants of a deceased road user add a further dimension, engaging the measure of loss of dependency. The firm's appearances as respondent on many of these appeals indicate that it frequently defends favourable Sessions Court findings on behalf of insurers and their insured, reinforcing its character as a dedicated road-accident and personal-injury practice.