The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding of liability, emphasizing the need for profound judicial appreciation of evidence in conflicting narratives.

Prelusion

[1] There was a road accident that involved three motorcycles. There were two conflicting narratives about how the accident occurred.

[2] Whose version is inherently probable? Whose version does the evidence support?

The Parties And The Agreed Facts

[3] From the parties' Common Chronology Of Facts (Enclosure 23 in the Appeal proceedings before me), I extract the following agreed facts. I will also identify the parties and the four road accident suits that they filed against one another in the Butterworth Sessions Court and the Bukit Mertajam Magistrates Court.

[4] The accident happened on 20 November 2016 at approximately 8.20 pm. on Jalan Juru, Seberang Perai Tengah.

[5] The parties are:

(1) the 1st Appellant: Mohd Najib Abu Bakar (Najib). Najib rode motorcycle PHH 3136 (PHH);

(2) the 2nd Appellant: Abu Nidal Romlan is the owner of motorcycle PHH. For the ease of reference, I will refer to both Appellants just by the 1st Appellant's name-"Najib";

(3) the 1st Respondent: Mohd Firdaus @ Omar Mohd Yusof (Firdaus). Firdaus rode motorcycle PEQ 2349 (PEQ);

(4) the 2nd Respondent: Mohd Idros Salleh, who is suing on behalf of his son: Mohd Fariz Salleh (Fariz). I was informed that Fariz subsequently passed away from the injuries suffered from the accident. Fariz was the pillion rider on the 3rd Respondent's motorcycle;

(5) the 3rd Respondent: Muhammad Ashraaf Shariff (Ashraaf). Ashraaf rode motorcycle PKS 3436 (PKS). Ashraaf was carrying Fariz. As they were on the same motorcycle, I will refer to both of them just by the 3rd Respondent's name "Ashraaf".

[6] So, these are the protagonists-(i) Najib/PHH; (ii) Firdaus/PEQ; and (iii) Ashraaf/PKS.

[7] Firdaus/PEQ, Fariz and Ashraaf/PKS suffered severe injuries, while Najib/PHH sustained only minor injuries.

[8] The road: Jalan Juru where the accident happened was dark and not lit by street lights.

The Respective Suits In The Subordinate Courts

[9] The parties filed four respective suits against one another:

(1) In Butterworth Sessions Court Suit PB-A53KJ-326-10/2017 (Suit 326), Firdaus sued Najib, who made Ashraaf the third party;

(2) In Butterworth Sessions Court Suit PB-A53KJ-417-08/2018 (Suit 417), Fariz sued Najib, who made Ashraaf and Firdaus the third parties;

(3) In Bukit Mertajam Magistrates Court Suit PC-A73KJ-790-08/2017 (Suit 790), Ashraaf sued Najib, who made Firdaus the third party; and

(4) In Bukit Mertajam Magistrates Court Suit PC-A73KJ-664-07/2017 (Suit 664), Najib sued Ashraaf. There was no third party in Suit 664.

[10] The Butterworth Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) ordered these four suits to be consolidated so that they were heard as one suit.

[11] After the trial of the consolidated suit, the SCJ allowed Ashraaf's and Firdaus' claims against Najib, holding Najib 100% liable for the damages arising from the accident.

[12] Najib appeals to the High Court. Although the Appeal was initially against both liability and quantum, the parties now inform me that this Appeal is confined only to the issue of liability.

Principles Of Appellate Intervention

[13] An Appellate Court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first instance Court (here: the SCJ), if the SCJ was 'plainly wrong' in his decision.

[14] 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 (FC), through Justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the 'plainly wrong' principle, through its development, into its current meaning.

[15]Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary 'plainly wrong' principle, includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative principles:

(1) The SCJ's decision is 'pla