Back
2023 MarsdenLR 210
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
AINI ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
NATHAN ATHIMOOLAM – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-47-07/2022]
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Personal Injury
Headnote
(B) Appellate courts should not substitute their views unless the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal. (Paras 5-8)
(C) The purpose of damages is to compensate for pain and suffering, not to punish. (Paras 7-8)
(D) Causation must be proven on a balance of probabilities, and the absence of evidence can lead to dismissal of claims. (Paras 20-22) (E) The court found the trial judge erred in assessing the causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries, leading to a reduction of damages awarded. (Paras 21-23) (F) The final decision reduced the total quantum of general damages from RM203,000.00 to RM130,000.00. (Paras 72-74) (G) Parties involved: Plaintiff and Defendant. (H) No dissenting opinions were noted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and appeal background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. principles guiding appellate intervention. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. causation and medical evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of medical treatment records. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. judicial appreciation of evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. conclusion on causation. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. quantum of damages for shoulder injuries. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. general principles on overlapping injuries. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. review of trial judge's assessment. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. muscle wasting and scarring. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 11. loss of earnings and future medical treatment. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 12. final conclusions and orders. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
Introduction
[1] The Sessions Court awarded various heads of damages in favour of the Plaintiff in this accident case.
[2] Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Defendant has appealed to this Court on the issues of damages and quantum thereof.
[3] After having read the parties' written submissions and having heard the parties' respective counsel, this Court on 21 August 2023 allowed parts of the Appellant/Defendant's appeal on the amounts of three (3) heads of damages and dismissed the appeal which relates to the other heads of damages.
[4] Dissatisfied with the decision, both the Appellant/Defendant and the Respondent/Plaintiff have filed separate notices of appeal to appeal against the respective parts of the decision which are not favourable to them respectively.
Principles On Appellate Intervention
[5] In an appeal against award of damages or compensation, the appellate Court may intervene where it is satisfied that the trial judge has acted on a wrong principle of law, or has misapprehended the facts, or has for other reasons made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages suffered: House of Lords in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Assoc Collieries [1942] AC, pp 616-617, followed in Collector of Stamp Duties v. Ng Fah In [1980] 1 MLRA 722; [1981] 1 MLJ 288 at p 292A; or to be a wholly wrong estimate of the damages, the amount awarded must manifestly be either excessively high or excessively low.
[6] An omission on the part of the trial judge to consider some relevant matters or he had admitted for the purpose of assessment some irrelevant considerations or a misdirection of law are examples of having acted on a wrong principle of law or having misapprehended the facts which justifies appellate interference on the award of damages or the quantum of damages: Supreme Court in Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani ; [1985] 3 CLJ (Rep) 323 followed by the Court of Appeal in Laksmana Realty Sdn Bhd v. Goh Eng Hwa ; [2006] 1 MLJ 675; at p 682 para [16].
[7] The Court of Appeal in the case of Sambaga Valli KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors And Other Appeal ; [2018] 4 AMR 745 emphasised regarding appellate intervention in the award of damages that:
'[8] The Court of Appeal may interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by the judge only if it is shows that the latter:
(a) acted on the wrong principles
(b) misapprehended the facts; and
(c) had for these or other reasons made a wholly erroneous estimate of his damages.
[8] In Aziz Zakaria & Anor v. Rusli Ijam the High Court summarised the principles and the approach in the following words:
'[6] The principles which allow an appellate Court to interfere with an award of damages are well established. The appellate Court will interfere where the Court below has: (i) acted on a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts; and (ii) made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages either by taking into account irrelevant considerations or omitting to take into account relevant considerations or making an award that is so inordinately low or manifestly excessive or making an award that is so
