JUDGMENT

Richard Malanjum JCA:

Introduction

On 16 August 2004 we allowed this appeal. We reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court which was upheld by the High Court on appeal. We came to the conclusion that the respondent was liable for the collision of the two motor cycles bearing registration numbers DP 3935 and PBH 2519 respectively on 25 December 1993 along Jalan Tanjung Bunga in front of Hotel Mount Pleasure, Penang. The issue of quantum was not before us and not an issue between the parties.

Since we reversed the concurrent decisions of the courts below, it would only be appropriate that we should give our reasons. In doing so we are well aware of the principle that generally a higher appellate court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by an intermediate appellate court and a trial court unless there is clear justification. (See: Pekan Nenas Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chang Ching Chuen & Ors [1998] 1 CLJ 793 FC (refd)). Where the findings of fact depended upon inferences drawn from other facts an appellate court is more readily inclined to interfere with such findings and form its independent opinion as the court is in as good a position to review and evaluate