AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

On the court record

A general insurer whose corpus footprint is motor-accident appeals from the Sessions Court, turning on liability, causation and expert evidence in road traffic claims and on notice-of-appeal procedure.

AXA Affin General Insurance Berhad is a general insurer, and it appears in the corpus in the motor-accident litigation characteristic of that business — appeals from the Sessions Court over liability and damages in road traffic accidents, in which the insurer stands behind or against the parties to the collision. It appears as respondent and appellant.

The core subject matter is negligence and causation in road traffic accidents. One appeal addressed liability in a motor-insurance claim, the standard of appellate review of a Sessions Court finding, and questions of causation and novus actus interveniens, together with the independence and admissibility of expert evidence and the effect of a delay in reporting to the police. In another set of consolidated appeals, the claim for damages arising out of a motor-vehicle accident had been dismissed at first instance while the insurer's counterclaim succeeded, and the appeals brought both the dismissal and the counterclaim up for review.

Procedural questions also feature. One matter concerned an application to amend a notice of appeal, the court considering whether prejudice was caused, whether the delay in filing the application was fatal, and whether it was made mala fide or as an abuse of process, noting the absence of a specific provision to amend a notice of appeal under Order 55 rule 9 of the Rules of Court 2012. A Malay-language appeal recorded the dissatisfaction of the appellant with the Sessions Court's decision — a "rayuan" (appeal) in which the notice of appeal against the whole of the learned Sessions Court judge's decision had been dismissed on the balance of probabilities. Across these matters the insurer's litigation reflects the practical work of contesting quantum, liability and appellate procedure in personal-injury motor claims. As the insurer standing behind a motor policy, the company's interest is typically to resist or reduce liability and to test the sufficiency of the evidence on which a Sessions Court apportioned fault, so its appearances trace the familiar path by which road-accident findings of fact are re-examined on appeal against the deferential standard of appellate review.