JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] This appeal arises from the decision of the Magistrates' Court on both liability and quantum, challenged by the appellants/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff, in turn, has filed a cross-appeal, contesting the quantum awarded.

[2] At first glance, the monetary value of the dispute may seem modest, but the legal questions it presents are far from trivial.

[3] These questions, though arising from a seemingly routine dispute, bear wider implications for personal injury litigation and the evidentiary thresholds required in such claims.

The Essential Issues

[4] Three pivotal issues emerge for determination in this appeal:

1. Appealability - Is the decision of the Magistrates' Court subject to appeal?

2. Liability - Whether the respondent/plaintiff has established negligence on a balance of probabilities.

3. Proof of special damages - Can special damages be established solely through documentary evidence?

[5] These issues, though specific to the present case, carry significance beyond it, shaping how similar claims may be adjudicated in the future.

Background Facts

[6] The respondent/plaintiff's claim arose from a motor vehicle accident alleged to have occurred between two cars bearing registration numbers WSF 303 and VBT 2983 along Jalan PJS 2/7 on 9 September 2020 at approximately 11.30pm.

[7] The owner of the vehicle bearing registration number WSF 303, being the respondent/plaintiff, has commenced a claim against the driver (2nd Appellant/Defendant) and the owner (1st Appellant/Defendant) of the vehicle bearing registration number VBT 2983 in the Magistrates' Court .

[8] As a result of the said accident, the respondent/plaintiff alleged that his vehicle sustained damage, causing him to suffer loss and damage, and has accordingly brought this action against the appellants/defendants.

[9] It is noteworthy that the respondent/plaintiff did not testify in the trial. Instead, the witnesses that testified on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff were SP-1, the Investigating Officer and SP-2, the Adjuster.

[10] Equally notable are the facts that the appellants/defendants did not file any witness statement nor call any witnesses and had made a submission of no case to answer at the end of the respondent/plaintiff's case.

The Decision Of The Magistrates' Court

[11] The learned magistrate found in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on the issue of liability but held that the respondent/plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%.

[12] On quantum, the respondent/plaintiff's total claim amounted to RM32,669.40, comprising RM28,753.40 for vehicle repair costs, RM796.00 for the adjuster's fees, RM2,100.00 for loss of use of the vehicle, and RM1,020.00 for miscellaneous claims.

[13] The learned magistrate allowed the claim for the adjuster's fees and awarded RM40.00 for loss of use, while dismissing the claim for miscellaneous expenses. With regard to the repair costs, the sum claimed was not allowed in full; instead, the magistrate awarded nominal damages of RM8,000.00.

[14] This brought the total judgment sum to RM8,836.00, which was computed on the basis of 100% liability before taking into account contributory negligence.

The Appellants/Defendants' Contentions

[15] On the issue of appealability and the application of s 28(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the appellants/defendants argued that the threshold of RM10,000.00 in s 28(1)(a) of the said Act has been met, thereby rendering the requirement to establish the existence of a question of law as unnecessary.

[16] On this preliminary point regarding the interpretation and applicability of s 28(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to the present appeal, the appellants/defendants have referred this Court to the following authorities, namely, Yai Yen Hon v. Teng Ah Kok & Sim Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor; [1997] 1 MLJ 136; [1997] 2 CLJ 68; [1994] 2 AMR 1003 ("Yai Yen Hon"), Harcharan Singh Sohan Singh v. Ranjit Kaur S Gean Singh; [2011] 3 CL