Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1910
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
CHEAH CHENG HUAT – Appellant
Versus
AIG MALAYSIA INSURANCE BERHAD – Respondent
[Appeal No: PA-12B-14-09/2022]
The monetary limit for appeals under Section 28(1)(a) of the CJA refers to the judgment sum granted, not the amount claimed in the Statement of Claim, rendering appeals incompetent if the judgment is RM10,000.00 or less.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 28(1)(a) - Appeal from subordinate courts - Prohibition against appeals where amount in dispute is RM10,000.00 or less, except on a question of law - The court ruled that the monetary limit pertains to the judgment sum granted, not the amount claimed. (Paras 28-72)
(B) Appeal competency - A preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal's competency based on the monetary limit stipulated in Section 28(1)(a) of the CJA. The court found that the appeal was rendered incompetent as the judgment amount was RM3,050.00, which is below the threshold. (Paras 1-5, 62-73)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed damages exceeding RM322,000.00 for breach of contract against the defendant, but the Sessions Court awarded only RM3,050.00. The defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeal's competency based on the monetary limit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appeal was incompetent due to the amount awarded being RM3,050.00, which is below the RM10,000.00 threshold.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal was competent under Section 28(1)(a) of the CJA, focusing on the interpretation of 'amount in dispute'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the monetary limit in Section 28(1)(a) refers to the judgment sum, not the amount claimed, affirming that the appeal was incompetent as the judgment amount was below RM10,000.00.
Result: Appeal struck out with costs awarded to the defendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary objection on appeal competency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. consequences of allowing or dismissing the objection. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of s 28(1)(a) of the cja. (Para 7 , 8 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. clarification of monetary limits in appeals. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. analysis of appeal scenarios under s 28(1)(a). (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 6. determination of whether appeal is on a question of law. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 7. final interpretation of appeal competency. (Para 70 , 71) |
| 8. conclusion and order regarding appeal. (Para 72) |
(Allowing Preliminary Objection That The Appeal Is Incompetent)
Prelusion
[1] The Appeal before me is a post-trial appeal from the Sessions Court. But at the hearing of the Appeal, the Respondent/Defendant (D) raised a preliminary objection against the competency of the Appeal.
[2] The Defendant submits that s 28(1)(a) of the Courts Of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) prohibits an appeal from the subordinate courts (the Sessions Court and the Magistrates Court) when "the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter" is RM10,000.00 or less, "except on a question of law".
[3] In the Sessions Court, the Appellant/Plaintiff (P) claimed the remedy of general, aggravated, exemplary, and quantifiable special damages that amounted to much more than RM10,000.00.
[4] The Sessions Court dismissed all of P's claims except for the sum of RM3,050.00 ie the Judgment sum granted to P against D was only RM3,050.00.
[5] If the preliminary objection is allowed, the Appeal will be rendered incompetent and should be struck out. If, on the other hand, the preliminary objection is dismissed, the Appeal will be heard and determined.
[6] Should D's preliminary objection be allowed?
Section 28(1)(A) Of The CJA
[7] Section 28(1)(a) of the CJA, as stated earlier, concerns Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court.
[8] It is pertinent to note the very words of s 28(1)(a) of the CJA:
Section 28. Civil appeals from subordinate courts.
(1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:
(a) subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;...
NOTE—The original provision was "one hundred dollars " (Revised 1972). Previously "Five hundred ringgit"-see Act A279.
Previously "Five thousand ringgit"-see Act A530. Now "ten thousand ringgit"-see Act A670.
[Emphasis Mine]
[9] I will refer to this current RM10,000.00 limit as "the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit".
Background—The Sessions Court Suit
[10] In the Sessions Court suit, P sued D under several insurance policies that P purchased from D. P asserted that in 2012, as a result of his trips to Indonesia and Langkawi, he fell very ill. He made claims under his insurance policies. D denied his claims He sued D for breach of contract.
[11] In his Statement Of Claim, P claimed unquantifiable damages (general, aggravated and exemplary), as well as quantifiable special damages. The special damages, from my computation of the particulars that P provided, amounted to over RM322,000.00. So, the amount claimed far exceeded the s 28(1)(a) monetary limit of RM10,000.00.
[12] In its Defence, D asserted that P's claims were not covered by the policies. D asserted that:
(1) P was not in an accident or suffered an injury as defined in the policies;
(2) P did not suffer any permanent injury;
(3) P's illness was not contracted during his trips to Indonesia or Langkawi.
[13] The Sessions Court granted Judgment to P in the amount of only RM3,050.00. P appealed to the High Court.
The Meaning Of The Words "The Amount In Dispute Or The Value Of The Subject Matter" In
