Teo & Associates

On the court record

Teo & Associates appears in the reported judgments as a personal-injury and motor-litigation practice, working entirely in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and appearing overwhelmingly as respondent. Its corpus is dominated by road traffic accidents (kemalangan jalan raya) on appeal from the Sessions Court. The recurring questions include liability and negligence — for example in a rear-end collision or where a rented vehicle's alleged brake failure was in issue — and the apportionment of fault between the parties, sometimes on an agreed basis such as a 90:10 split. On quantum, the firm's matters turn on the scope of appellate intervention in a Sessions Court award, whether an award of general damages was excessive or inadequate, and the measure of loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. Fatal-accident claims for loss of dependency under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 recur, brought by the dependants of a deceased road user. A distinct procedural strand concerns a judgment in default and the distinction between a regular and an irregular default judgment, including the setting aside of a regular default judgment after an assessment, in a matter involving the Motor Insurers' Bureau of West Malaysia. The counterparties in the corpus include the Motor Insurers' Bureau and motor insurers. Acting overwhelmingly as respondent — frequently defending favourable Sessions Court findings on behalf of insurers and their insured — the firm presents as a dedicated road-accident and personal-injury practice whose corpus turns on liability, apportionment, the assessment of quantum and the procedural questions that attend default judgments in motor claims. The distinction between a regular and an irregular default judgment is a recurring technical question in its corpus, since it governs whether a defaulting party is entitled to have the judgment set aside as of right or only on showing a defence with merit, and the firm's matters engage that distinction directly. Its quantum appeals, meanwhile, turn on the settled principle that an appellate court will not lightly disturb a trial court's assessment of damages unless the award is shown to be plainly excessive or inadequate.