Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff

On the judicial record

A versatile High Court judge whose reported corpus moves across personal-injury quantum appeals, criminal trials and appeals, and administrative-law and contract disputes.

Justice Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff sits in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions in this corpus combine appellate work from the subordinate courts with first-instance trials, spanning tort, crime, contract and administrative law. Personal-injury and road-traffic litigation is a strong thread, much of it on appeal from the Sessions Court on quantum — for example the assessment of damages for a below-knee amputation, including argument over whether a male plaintiff may recover for loss of the prospect of marriage and for loss of earning capacity, and awards for fractured injuries with severe surgical complications and permanent impairment.

Criminal appeals and trials feature prominently. Appeals against conviction and sentence engage points such as a material variance between the date stated in a rape charge and the date shown by the evidence, and the amendment of a dangerous-driving charge mid-trial under the Road Transport Act 1987. First-instance drug trials under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 turn on possession and the statutory presumptions, including whether an accused had exclusive possession of drugs found in shared premises, and a causation question arose where death followed an assault by many months and the court had to decide whether an intervening complication broke the chain of causation under seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (section 304(a) of the Penal Code).

Civil and administrative matters round out the docket, including an application for declaratory relief that the shooting of a stray dog contravened the Animal Welfare Act 2015 and that local by-laws were ultra vires, a contract dispute on whether a sub-distribution agreement was formed by conduct and correspondence, an order-for-sale application under the National Land Code and a question of an employer's standing to sue its own employee for breach of fiduciary duty. The corpus reflects a versatile trial and appellate judge across the civil and criminal divide.