Appellate courts may only interfere with lower court findings if they are 'plainly wrong', and damages must be substantiated with evidence, not merely claimed.

Prelusion

[1] This is an Appeal from the Sessions Court, against the Sessions Court Judge's (SCJ) Judgment dated 25 March 2022. This Appeal is only on the issue of quantum.

[2] The parties had agreed on apportioning liability at 50% - 50% respectively.

[3] An efficient way to deal with this Appeal on quantum is to evaluate the findings and the reasonings of the SCJ item-by-item, and to decide whether to exercise appellate interference to vary the quantum awarded.

Law On Appellate Intervention

[4] An Appellate Court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first instance Court (here: the Session Court), if the first instance Court was "plainly wrong" in its decision.

[5] The Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors 2020 MarsdenLR 756 ; ; [2020] 10 CLJ 1, through the written grounds of Justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the "plainly wrong" principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning.

[6]Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary "plainly wrong" principle, includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative principles, and I apply them here:

i. The SCJ's decision is "plainly wrong" if it was arrived at through "no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence": referring to UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor 2010 MarsdenLR 2766; [SUPP] 2018 MLJ 363; .

ii. This phrase of the "lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence" encompasses these three errors:

a. critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (findings not based on the evidence);

b. demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (misunderstanding the evidence);

c. demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (failure to consider the evidence).

iii. The SCJ's decision is "plainly wrong" if it was arrived at through a "material error of law": following Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC).

iv. The SCJ's decision is "plainly wrong" if it "could not reasonably be explained or justified", making it a decision "which no reasonable judge could have reached": Tengku DatO Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal 2017 MarsdenLR 2888; ; [2018] 2 CLJ 641.

v. The High Court, as an Appellate Court, is to evaluate whether the SCJ's decision was "reasonably made": paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra).

Fundamental Principles On Awarding Damages

[7] The fundamental principle that damages must be proven as to liability and quantum, and not merely asserted, is reinforced in the Federal Court case of Datuk Mohd Ali Hj Abdul Majid & Anor (both practising as Messrs Mohd Ali & Co) v. Public Bank Bhd 2014 MarsdenLR 1867 ; ; [2014] 6 CLJ 269; [2014] 4 AMR 301. The Federal Court held:

[31] The object of an award of damages is to give the claimant compensation for the damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The general principle governing the measure of damages has its origin in the words of Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cas 25 where he said:

that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.

[32] It is trite law that a claimant claiming damages must prove that he has suffered the dam