James Foong JCA:

Introduction

[1] Since this appeal originated from the subordinate court, in order to avoid confusion as to the description of parties before us, I shall refer to them as they were described in the court of first instance.

[2] The plaintiff is, and was at all material time, an Indonesian national. Before she was involved in a motor accident on 31 January 2000 (the motor accident), she was engaged as a domestic help in this country. She was what we normally call, an 'Indonesian maid'. She was paid a salary of RM350 per month by her Malaysian employer. Her work permit issued by the Malaysian Immigration Department for this position was from July 1999 to July 2000. Due to her injuries suffered as a result of the motor accident where the defendants were held 90% liable with her contributing 10%, the plaintiff claimed that she was unable to work. Her employer had stopped paying her salary immediately after the accident. However, he provided her with food and shelter until her work permit expired. Thereafter, it was not renewed and the plaintiff lost her job. The reason advanced by her previous employer for not renewing her work permit is that she was physically incapable of performing her duties as a domestic help after the motor accident. As a result of this, the plaintiff now claims that she should be entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings amounting to RM67,200 as permitted under s. 28A(2)(d)(i) of the Civil Law Act 1956 (the Act). This is the main contention in her appeal before us after the Sessions Court granted her only a sum of RM2,100 for loss of earnings and the High Court affirmed this amount on appeal. The courts arrived at this sum by using a multiplicand of six months on a multiplier of RM350. The rational advanced for the use of six months as the multiplicand was that the plaintiff's work permit expired six months from the date of the accident. Aside from this award for loss of earnings, the plaintiff was also granted special damages as well as general damages for pain and suffering. Since there is no dispute on these awards, there is no necessity to mention them in detail here.

[3] As the principle issue of this case involves the loss of future earnings, it is appropriate to reproduce s. 28A(2) of the Act which deals with this subject.

[4] Section 28A(2)

In assessing damages under this section:

(a) no damage shall be recoverable in respect of any loss of expectation of life caused to the plaintiff by the injury;

(b) if the plaintiff's expectation of life has been reduced by the injury, the Court, in assessing damages in respect of pain and suffering caused by the injury, shall take into account any suffering caused or likely to be caused by awareness that his expectation of life has been so reduced;

(c) in awarding damages for loss of future earnings the Court shall take into account:

(i) that in the case of a plaintiff who has attained the age of fifty-five years or above at the time when he was injured, no damages for such loss shall be awarded; and in any other case, damages for such loss shall not be awarded unless it is proved or admitted that the plaintiff was in good health but for the injury and was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity before he was injured;

(ii) only the amount relating to his earnings as aforesaid at the time when he was injured and the Court shall not take into account any prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at some time in the future;

(iii) any diminution of any such amount as aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the living expenses of the plaintiff at the time when he was injured;

(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 extendi