JUDGMENT

Khairul Nizam Abu Bakar M:

[1] Chronologically, this case had been fixed for trial 13 August 2018. The Plaintiff's counsel En Murali had earlier informed this Court that this matter could be resolved, and the Court had stood down the matter and giving priority to other cases. Unfortunately, when the matter was recalled, in the presence of Mr Vincent, the Court was informed that there is dispute.

[2] When the Court was ready to hear the witnesses, I was informed that they had only reached the liability of 50:50. En Murali did not dispute on this. They requested a short date for them to sort the issues that arose earlier. I had fixed a week time on 21 August 2018 for the issues to be cleared up in which they did.

[3] On the 21 August 2018, despite informing of the issues that had been resolved, the parties had also kept this Court informed that they had agreed on the medical reports but subject to the submission. I had directed the written submission to be filed and fixed the decision for this case.

Findings Of The Court

[4] I am repeating my common authority that I mostly refer to in all my judgments in respect of the damages ie the case of ; [1983] 2 MLJ 324; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 30