Azmi (Malaya) CJ:

This is an appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court at Johore Bahru. The learned Judge awarded $32,012.60 altogether being (1) $5,675 special damages (2) $27,337.60 general damages.

The general damages are made up of two items: -

(1)$8,337.60 for future loss of earnings,

(2)$19,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

There is no complaint against the award of $8,337.60 for future loss of earnings but it is against the award for special damages and that for pain and suffering and loss of amenities that the appellant complains.

Now as to the award for special damages first. It was contended that this should not be awarded at all or if an award under this item should be made it should be only for loss of wages for nine months which would amount to $270 x 9 = $2,430. Before I refer to the argument on the question of special damages, I had better refer to the pleadings. Para 7 of the statement of claim says as follows:

The plaintiff was aged 40 years and worked as a kampong worker earning at an average of $10 a day. As a result of the aforesaid negligence the plaintiff has been unable to continue in his employment and has lost his means of earning a living. He is now dependent on the charity of his friends.

Paragraph 8 says as follows: -

(a) .............. ................ ..................

(b)Special damages as set out in para. 7 above.

It was contended by Mr. Hilborne that the above pleadings were not sufficient for the purpose of a claim for special damages.

In support of his contention, Mr. Hilborne cited to us the case of IIkiw v. Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991. This was an action for damages on the ground of negligence and was not heard until about 8 years after the accident happened. The learned Judge awarded STG4,000 as general damages in addition to STG77 claimed and pleaded as special damages.

The Court of Appeal reduced the figure on the ground, as I understand the judgment, that the very large figure of general damages at which the Judge had arrived could be explained 'Only on the basis that it contained a very substantial, though concealed, element of past loss of earnings, which had not been pleaded or that the award was a wholly erroneous estimate of the plaintiff's loss. In either case the Court of Appeal considered that it was bound to interfere.

Mr. Hilborne suggested that we should not allow this amount altogether. In my view this claim has been sufficiently pleaded; indeed Mr. Ramachandran who appeared in the lower Court conceded that special damages were payable, albeit up to August 1964. Clearly the pleadings caused no surprise and no injustice to the appellant. This question should be considered therefore only on the ground as to whether it was a wholly erroneous award of the plaintiff's loss. The amount allowed by the Judge was for a loss of earnings for 21 months. He gave reasons for coming to that decision and in my view the amount was reasonable (considering that as a result of his injuries the respondent had been unemployed for three years) and for that reason the appeal on this ground should be dismissed.

As to the appeal on quantum of general damages, Mr. Hilborne said he had no complaint against the first part of it namely the award of $8,337.60 for future loss of earnings but he submitted that the balance of $19,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is excessive and he cited to us several cases where for more or less similar injuries, the Courts had awarded much less. He suggested that under this heading, the Judge should award a figure between $8,000 and $10,000 for injuries to the body and loss of amenities so that the total under this heading and special damages should amount to between $18,000 to $20,000.

The difficulty of laying down the principles on which damages are awarded has frequently been recognized. However, as Lindley LJ in Rodocanachi v. Mibburn Brothers [1887], 18 QBD 67, 78 Stated:

It must be remembere