SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1991 MarsdenLR 538

SUPREME COURT KUALA LUMPUR
FRANK ASTLE WARD – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02-1-1991]



Petitioner Advocates:RK Nathan ,Respondent Advocate: Ronald Khoo,Radhakrishnan

JUDGMENT

Mohd Azmi SCJ:

[1] The appellant's claim is for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss suffered by him and caused by the negligence and/or breach of duty on the part of the respondents (Malaysian Airlines System Berhad - "MAS"), their servants or agents. He also claims interests on general damages at the rate of 8% per annum from date of service of the writ of summons to date of judgment, and on special damages at the rate of 4% per annum from date of accident to date of judgment or payment, and costs.

[2] The appellant, an Australian national, was at all material times employed by MAS as a pilot in the East Malaysia Rural Air Services operating in Sabah and Sarawak. In addition to the Rural Air Services using twin and single engine aircrafts, it is a well-known fact that MAS operate both international and domestic airline passenger and cargo services using modern planes including 737B and 747 jumbo jets for overseas destinations.

[3] It is not in dispute that on 6 July 1982 the appellant, aged 42 years was the pilot of a Norman Islander (BN2) aircraft flying from Long Somado to Lawas in the Fifth Division of Miri, Sarawak, when the said aircraft developed engine trouble causing the appellant to make an emergency crash landing on a football field at Long Bayu near Lawas. As a consequence, the appellant suffered a head injury and other minor injuries.

[4] At the hearing in the High Court on 8 February 1990, MAS through their Counsel, Dato'Ronald Khoo, admitted 100% liability; thus only the issue of quantum of damages both general and special, was left to be determined by the High Court. To save time and costs, an agreed bundle of documents was put in consisting of:

(i) "AB1" Dr Bala Ratnam's Medical Report.

(ii) "AB2" Dato' (Dr) Arumugasamy's medical report.

(iii) "AB3" Overseas related medical report.

(iv) "AB4" Related correspondence with defendants (respondents) & Civil Aviation.

(v) "AB5" Documents relating to Department of Social Security (Perth)Australia.

(vi) "AB6" Documents relating to salary & payslips.

(vii) "AB7" Bundle of documents relating to the plaintiff's (appellant's)Employments.

(viii) "AB8" Appellant's (plaintiff's) flight licences.

(ix) "AB9" Australian Industrial Relations Commission Report.

[5] The appellant gave evidence and called a witness in the person of Mr William Alan Douglas (PW1), a clinical psychologist from Fremantle, Australia who gave expert evidence on residual damage caused by the head injury based on various tests, including IQ tests. MAS called one witness, Capt. Hj. Mohd Kamil bin Hj. Abu Bakar (DW1), a chief pilot attached to their security division.

[6] In a 41-page written judgment, the learned Judge assessed damages for the appellant as follows:

(a) General damages for pain and suffering.RM 60,000
(b) Pre-trial loss of earnings:
(i) RM4,000 per month from the month of August 1983 to July 1985, that is 24 months.
RM96,000
(ii) RM2,000 per month from August 1985 to February 1990, that is, 55 months.
RM110,000
(c) Post-trial loss of earnings RM2,000 per month for 17 monthsRM 34,000
(d) Special damages with interest at 4% per annum from date of accident, that is, 6 July 1982 to date of judgment and thereafter further interest at 8% from date of judgment to date of realisation.RM 1,250
RM301,250

[7] The learned Judge then ordered a deduction of RM300,000 which the appellant had received from an insurance company under a general accident policy taken by MAS for the benefit of the appellant and other employees under the terms of their contract of employment, thereby leaving a judgment sum of only RM1,250. The learned Judge also ordered 4% interest per annum on the judgment sum of RM1,250 from date of accident to date of judgment and thereafter at 8% per annum from date of judgment to date of realisation, which would appear to represent the interests sought for special damages. He further ordered each party to bear its own costs.

[8] In the memorandum, the appellant set out 18 grounds of appeal,


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top