Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proven; failure to do so results in nominal damages despite liability.

JUDGMENT

Shairil Farhana Ruslan M:

A. Background

[1] The Plaintiff's suit arise from a running down incident involving the Plaintiff's motorcycle (WQG 7765) that was ridden by Effandi Bin Malek and the Defendant's motorcar (WA 2963 A) that had occurred on 26 September 2017 at around 8.45 am. The accident had occurred while Effandi was riding along the Mex Highway, just after passing the Salak South toll. While he was riding on the leftmost lane, suddenly the Defendant's motorcar had hit the Plaintiff's motorcycle from the right. As a result, the Plaintiff's motorcycle had suffered damages. Plaintiff is now claiming for damages for the cost of repairs for the motorcycle.

[2] After 3 days of trial and after hearing the submissions from both parties, and on the balance of probabilities, this Court decided to allow a portion of the Plaintiff's claims with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the Plaintiff.

[3] To be specific, this Court finds that the Defendant is to be held 100% liable for negligently causing the accident however this Court only allows a nominal sum of RM10.00 of damages to the Plaintiffs.

[4] Not satisfied with this Court's decision, Plaintiff has now filed a Notice of Appeal against this Court's decision on the issue of quantum (only) on 20 December 2023. Here are this Court's grounds of decision on the issue of quantum.

[5] At trial, Plaintiff had called a total of 5 witnesses while the Defendant did not call any witnesses. The list of witnesses are as follows:

Name of Witness	Role	Label	Witness Statement
Effandi Bin Abd Malek	Rider to Plaintiff's motorcycle	SP1	PSSP1
Inspector Muhammad Fauzi BAhmad Fuaat	Investigating Officer	SP2	PSSP2
Shahrinniswan Bin Abd Rahman	Representative from Bahagian Logistik Pengangkutan (Teknikal), IPKKL	SP3	PSSP3
Maizatul Hafiza Binti Mohamad	Representative from Finance Unit, IPKKL	SP4	PSSP4
Mohamad Zamri Bin Idris	Director of Gerbang Cahaya Resources Sdn Bhd	SP5	PSSP5

B. This Court's Grounds Of Decision On The Issue Of Quantum

[6] In this suit, the Plaintiff claimed for the cost of repairing the Plaintiff's motorcycle which the Plaintiff claims amounted to RM18,310.00. After hearing all the testimonies from the witnesses at trial and after perusing through all the documentary evidences adduced, this Court finds at the Plaintiff had failed to prove succinctly how much was the cost of repairs, what was the basis of them claiming that amount and whether or not the motorcycle was indeed repaired as specified. This inadequacy makes it impossible for the Court to grant the whole amount as pleaded by the Plaintiff.

[7] However, taking into account that the Defendant was liable for causing the accident, but it is just a failure on the part of the Plaintiff in proving the special damages that they had incurred, this Court hereby grants a nominal award of RM10.00 to the Plaintiff.

[8] Before this Court goes into the basis of this Court's decision on the issue of quantum, I will briefly state the law with regards to special damages. It is an established principle of law where special damages is to be pleaded specifically and proven strictly. Reference is made to the case of Ong Ah Long v. Dr S Underwood , 1983 MarsdenLR 58 ; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 300 in where the Federal Court Judge, His Lordship Syed Agil Barakbah (as he was then) said as follows:

"It is a well-established principle that special damages in contrast to general damages have to be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. They are recoverable only where they can be included in the proper measure of damages and are not too remote (see Halsbury's Laws of England 4th edition, vol 11 p 218 para 386). That in our view is the cardinal principle adopted by all courts both in England and this country. The same principle was adopted by Ong Hock Thye, FJ (as he then was) in Yee Hup Transport & Company & Anor v. Wong Kong, 1967 MarsdenLR 440 which was an appeal on quantum of damages. Quoting an excerpt from the judgment of Wilmer LJ in Ilkiw v. Samuels [1963] 1 WLR 991; [1963]