Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] These two appeals came up before us on the same list. Their facts are unconnected. But they have a common; almost identical point of law. It has to do with whether a court in a running down action, whether resulting in death or personal injury has authority to reduce the multiplier below the limit prescribed by the ss 7 and 28A respectively of the Civil Law Act 1956. Section 7 has to do with the damages recoverable in a fatal accident claim. Section 28A deals with damages recoverable for the loss of future earnings in a personal injuries claim. It is important to reproduce the relevant portion of each of these sections.

[2]Section (7)(3) in so far as is material reads:-

The damages which the party who shall be liable under sub-section (1) to pay to the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought shall, subject to this section, be such as will compensate the party for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought for any loss of support suffered together with any reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the party liable under sub-section (1).

Provided that:-

(iv) in assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after the death of a person where such earnings provide for or contribute to the damages under this section the court shall:-

(a) take into account that where the person deceased has attained the age of fifty five years at the time of his death, his loss of earnings for any period after his death shall not be taken into consideration; and in the case of any other person deceased, his loss of earnings for any period after his death shall be taken into consideration if it is proved or admitted that the person deceased was in good health but for the injury that caused his death and was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity prior to his death;

(b) take into account only the amount relating to the earnings as aforesaid and the court shall not take into account any prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at any period after the person's death;

(c) take into account any diminution of any such amount as aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the living expenses of the person deceased at the time of his death;

(d) take into account that in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years and below at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be 16; and in the case of any other person who was of the age range extending between thirty one years and fifty four years at the time of his death, the number of years' purchase shall be calculated by using the figure 55, minus the age of the person at the time of death and dividing the remainder by the figure 2.

[3]Section 28A(2)(d) reads as follows:-

(2)(d) in assessing damages for loss of future earnings the court shall take into account that:-

(i) in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years or below at the time when he was injured, the number of years' purchase shall be 16; and

(ii) in the case of any other person who was of the age range extending between thirty one years and fifty four years at the time when he was injured, the number of years' purchase shall be calculated by using the figure 55, minus the age of the person at the time when he was injured and dividing the remainder by the figure 2.

[4] We emphasise that both ss 7 and 28A use the phrase "shall be 16" when fixing the multiplier Can a court reduce this further, to say, 10 years? A majority of the Supreme court in Chan Chin Min & Anor v. Lim Yok Eng, [1994] 3 MLJ 233 answered that question in the affirmative. But Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ, a most learned judge whose judgments are entitled to great respect, registered a powerful dissent. In our considered judgment, the majority in that case were wrong. It is the dissent that states the law correctly. We will now state the reasons for our conclusion.

[5]Chan Chin Ming was a case where the victim of the