Lord Pearson:

On 9 March 1966 in River Valley Road, Singapore, there was a road accident in which two buses and a motor-cycle were involved. One bus belonged to the Tay Koh Yat Bus Co, the appellant in these appeals. That company will be called 'the Tay company' and the bus will be called 'the Tay bus'. The driver of this bus was Mr. Ramaswamy. After stopping at a bus stop he was driving the Tay bus down a slight slope along the River Valley Road. On the same road, and initially moving in the same direction as the Tay bus and in front of it, having overtaken it at the bus stop, was the motor-cyclist, Chua Chong Cher, the respondent in these appeals. He will be called the 'motor-cyclist'. Coming in the opposite direction and keeping to its proper side of the road was the other bus, which belonged to the Hock Lee Amalgamated Bus Co. That company will be called 'the Hock Lee company' and the bus will be called 'the Hock Lee bus'. The driver of this bus was Mr. Oon Long Kiang.

Two actions were brought in the High Court of Singapore in respect of the accident. In the first action the plaintiff was Mr. Oon Long Kiang, the driver of the Hock Lee bus, and the defendants were (1) the motor-cyclist and (2) the Tay company. In the second action the plaintiff was a lady who had been a passenger in the Hock Lee bus, and the defendants were (1) the Hock Lee company (2) the Tay company and (3) the motor-cyclist. It was arranged that there should be a hearing of the second action only, and that the decision in that action should govern the decision in the first action. The arrangement applied also to the appeals in the two actions to the Federal Court of Malaysia and now applies to the present appeals.

It is not now suggested that the driver of the Hock Lee bus was in any way to blame for the accident. The disputed question is whether the accident was due to negligence on the part of the motor-cyclist, as the trial Judge held, or to negligence on the part of the driver of the Tay bus, as the Federal Court of Malaysia held. The issue in the appeal is whether the Federal Court was justified in reversing, the decision of the trial Judge on a matter of fact, when his finding was based mainly on his acceptance of the evidence of one witness in preference to the evidence of another witness. There is however a good deal of undisputed evidence, which it is convenient to deal with first.

It is common ground that the motor-cyclist slowed down and stopped in the middle of the River Valley Road, intending to turn to his offside into a side road called Leonie Hill Road but having to wait for oncoming traffic to pass. There is a dispute as to whether he remained stationary in that position or started to move towards his nearside in front of the Tay bus. It is clear, for reasons which will be stated, that the Tay bus was travelling on its nearside but swerved abruptly to its offside. Some part of it, not identified but presumably the nearside front corner or some part of the nearside, struck a blow on the back of the motor-cycle, damaging the rim of the back wheel and the nearside portion of the rear number plate. The front of the Tay bus went over the centre of the road on to its offside. The driver started to pull back to his nearside, but there was no time and the Tay bus collided, front to front but at an angle, with the Hock Lee bus.

There was an agreed plan, prepared by the police, showing the positions of the vehicles after the accident, and there were agreed photographs of the vehicles in those positions. There was also a plan, submitted by the motor-cyclist's Counsel and included in the record, showing on squared paper the two buses in their positions after the accident, and this is useful as showing certain distances and the angle of the Tay bus in relation to the direction of the road.

The width of the River Valley Road was 30ft two in and the width of the Tay bus was seven ft two in. In the position of the Tay bus after the acciden