In this case, the first and second plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence arising out of a collision between motorcar BAF 996 driven by the first plaintiff in which the second plaintiff was a passenger and motor lorry BAX 1378 driven by the first defendant along Jalan 8/1, Petaling Jaya, on September 10, 1979.

On June 21, 1983, the solicitors for the defendants filed a notice of indemnity and contribution against the first plaintiff claiming to be entitled to contribution from the first plaintiff any sum which the second plaintiff might recover from the defendants to the extent of the first plaintiff's liability.

On July 6, 1983, when this matter came before me, the parties by consent agreed on liability, in that, as between the first plaintiff and the defendants, the former was 20% to blame. As for the second plaintiff, the defendants admitted 100% liability and they were ordered to pay the second plaintiff the sum of $230,871.92 being general and special damages with interest and costs. Further argument on the defendants' claim for contribution against the first plaintiff was adjourned to August 8, 1983.

Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for the defendants, submitted that the defendants can seek contribution from the first plaintiff in respect of the second plaintiff's damages to the extent of 20% liability as agreed between his clients and the first plaintiff. He contended that the defendants will in fact be liable to pay to the second plaintiff 80% of the total award of $230,871.92 and that the balance of 20% must be recovered by the second plaintiff direct from the first plaintiff. In short, he wanted me to make an order to that effect.

In my judgment, this submission must fail. Of course, I agree that the defendants can recover contribution from the first plaintiff. This right is conferred by section 10(1)(c) of the Civil Law Act (Act 67) which says that where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort, any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover from any other tortfeasor whom if sued, would have been liable in respect of the same damage whether as a joint tortfeasor or otherwise. This section, however, does not empower me to make the order asked for by Mr. Jagjit. What the defendants can do, which in fact has been the practice, is to recover the balance sum (20% liability) by way of a separate action against the first plaintiff. In so far as the defendants' liability against the second plaintiff, they have still to satisfy the full amount of the judgment. It was said in Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition), Vol. 28 at paragraph 100 page 95:

"... where a person travelling as a passenger in a vehicle belonging to a third person is injured by the negligence of the defendant, he is entitled to recover in full against the latter notwithstanding that the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff is travelling may also have been guilty of some negligence contributing to the accident."

As far as I am aware, this common law principle is still good law.

In Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162, 188 at page 188, Devlin L.J. said as follows:

"... where injury has been done to the plaintiff and the injury is indivisible, any tortfeasor whose act has been a proximate cause of the injury must compensate for the whole of it. As between the plaintiff and the defendant it is immaterial that there are others whose acts also have been a cause of the injury and it does not matter whether those others have or have not a good defence. These factors would be relevant in a claim between tortfeasors for contribution, but the plaintiff is not concerned with that; he can obtain judgment for total compensation from anyone whose act has been a cause of his injury. If there are more than one of such persons, it is immaterial to the plaintiff whether they are joint tortfeasors or not. If four men, acting severally and not in concert, strike the plaintiff one after another and as a res