Back
2022 MarsdenLR 997
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
LIM CHIA WEE – Appellant
Versus
WAN KAM SIANG – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: JA-12B-96-12/2020]
In appeals concerning damages, courts exercise deference to trial judges unless demonstrable errors or unreasonable figures are presented, as established in precedent.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure – Appeal – Quantum of damages awarded for pain and suffering and medical expenses. The sessions court awarded RM306,810.00 for general damages and RM106,757.45 for medical expenses, which the appellant contested on grounds of excessive amounts due to the injury severity and early death. (Paras 2, 11-17)
(B) Legal Principles – In appeals regarding damages, the appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion unless erroneous principles were applied, or the award is strikingly unreasonable, as outlined in relevant case law (Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani Angasamy and others). (Paras 4-11)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff suffered serious injuries including multiple fractures and a minor neurocognitive disorder following an accident. Medical commentary emphasized the severity of her conditions and future health implications. The Plaintiff passed away 23 months after the accident. (Paras 5-10)
Findings of Court: The Sessions Judge properly assessed damages considering the Plaintiff's suffering, and deducted a reasonable percentage for early death. The findings were upheld by this court. (Paras 11-19)
Issues: The main issues revolved around the appropriateness of the damages awarded, comparison of injuries assessed, and appropriate deductions due to early death. (Paras 11-17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sessions Judge did not err in her discretion regarding damage assessment; the deductions were not so low as to warrant appellate intervention based on evidence presented. (Paras 11-17)
Result: Defendant's appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 19)
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff and Defendant both filed separate appeals against the decision of the Sessions Judge only on the issue of quantum of damages. Since both parties filed separate appeals, I shall address each appeal separately.
This appeal is by the Defendant in the Sessions Court, and I shall refer to the parties as they were in the Court below.
Background Facts
[2] The learned Sessions Judge awarded inter-alia the following damages to the Plaintiff:
i. General damages for pain and suffering in the sum of RM306,810.00;
ii. Medical expenses incurred at a private hospital (Columbia Asia Hospital) in the sum of RM106,757.45.
[3] After reading the written submissions and hearing submissions by the parties, I affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal by the Defendant. Thus, this appeal against my decision by the Defendant on the above two (2) items of damages only.
Principles Applicable To An Appeal On Quantum Of Damages
[4] The law on appeal against quantum of damages is trite and well settled.
In Tan Kuan Yau v. Suhindrimani Angasamy , ; [1985] CLJ (Rep) 323 , the Supreme Court provided the following guidelines to be followed:
"Now, in an appeal on quantum of damages it is essential in order to come to a conclusion to bear in mind certain principles which are well established. The appeal Court is slow, disinclined to interfere with the Judge's finding merely because the appeal Court thinks that if the case had been before it in the first instance a lesser sum would have been awarded. Azmi, CJ (Malaya) (as he then was) giving the judgment of the Federal Court in Topaiwah v. Salleh , , 285 said that:
'...So far as this Court is concerned we should, to paraphrase Greer LJ in Flint v. Lovell , be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of damages merely because we think that if we had tried the case in the first instance we would have given a lesser sum. To justify reversing him, we should be convinced that he acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage. The assessments which the courts have made over the years form some guide to the kind of figure which is proper and which the appellate Court will follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case.'
(See Flint v. Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354).
In Greenfield v. London and North Eastern Railway Company [1945] KB 89, MacKinnon, LJ had this to say:
'The principle on which the Court of Appeal reviews the assessment of damages, whether too high or too low, is not because the Court of Appeal might have given rather more or rather less, but only (1) if the Judge has omitted some relevant consideration or admitted some irrelevant consideration, or (2) if the amount is so excessive, or insufficient, as to be plainly unreasonable.'
Lord Evershed, MR in Wilson v. Pilley [1957] 3 All ER 525, 526 emphasised that:
'... interference by this Court with an award of damages by the trial Judge must be a rare thing, and may I say that it should be perhaps even rarer in relatively small cases tried in the county Court. No one would suggest that, because this Court thought that the damages, small in any case, were rather on the low side, this Court could consider for a moment slightly raising the figure or adopting the converse course in a different kind of case. In other words, the onus on an appellant seeking to interfere with an award of damages, particularly within this sort of scale, is a heavy one.'"
Injuries Suffered By The Plaintiff Resulting From The Accident
[5] The medical report prepared by Dr Aswadi Bin Mohd Arif from Columbia Asia Hospital, dated 12 July 2018, stated that the Plaintiff suffered the following injuries:
i. Loss of consciousness.
ii. Multiple laceration wound x 4 anterior left knee with quadricep muscle cut, and communicating with joint.
iii. Cerebral concuss
