Appellate Courts Interfere with Damages Quantum Only if Inordinately Low or High: High Court Alor Setar

Introduction

The High Court in Alor Setar, presided over by Judge Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari H, dismissed an appeal against a Sessions Court decision on two key quantum issues in a personal injury claim but allowed a partial increase in general damages for knee injuries. The case, involving the appellant (Perayu) who suffered partial tears to knee ligaments following an accident, centered on claims for future loss of earnings, future surgery costs, and overall compensation. This ruling reinforces the limited scope of appellate intervention in damage assessments, emphasizing the need for proven evidence in future loss claims while adjusting awards for contemporary economic factors.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a personal injury sustained by the appellant, a person with learning disabilities (OKU), who experienced partial tears to the left anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with muscle wasting and risk of osteoarthritis, partial tear of the left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), and a longitudinal tear of the posterior horn of the left medial meniscus. These injuries occurred in an accident approximately three years prior to the appeal. The Sessions Court (HMS) awarded RM30,000 in global general damages but rejected claims for future loss of earnings and costs of total knee replacement surgery. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the High Court solely on quantum issues, focusing on whether the trial court's assessments were erroneous or required upward adjustment.

Arguments Presented

The appellant argued for higher compensation, seeking recognition of future loss of earnings due to inability to work post-injury, despite returning briefly to employment before being terminated. They cited medical reports indicating a high risk of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis and potential need for total knee replacement surgery costing RM40,000. For general damages, the appellant pushed for RM85,000, emphasizing the combined impact of multiple knee injuries.

The respondents countered that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence proving permanent incapacity for work, noting medical reports from both sides showed no ongoing inability to work and that the appellant could walk unaided and had opted for pension rather than re-employment. On surgery costs, they relied on their expert's more recent examination five months after the appellant's, which found all ligaments intact with no further treatment needed. For general damages, the respondents advocated RM25,000, arguing the injuries were localized to the left knee and not severe enough for higher awards.

Legal Analysis

The High Court applied established principles limiting appellate interference with trial court damage awards, intervening only if findings were plainly wrong, based on incorrect legal principles, or amounts were inordinately low or high. Citing Federal Court precedent in UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor , the court stressed that appellate courts should not substitute their views unless there is clear error in fact or law. Further references to Topaiwah v Salleh , United Plywood And Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi , Rasidin Bin Partorjo v Frederick Kiai , and Nordin Bin Haji Abdul Wahab v Mohamed Salleh Bin Hassan underscored that assessments are matters of judgment, guided by comparable awards but adjustable for case specifics.

On future loss of earnings, the court upheld the Sessions Court's rejection under the burden of proof in Sections 101-102 of the Evidence Act 1950, drawing from Ngooi Ku Siong & Anor v Aidi Abdullah that such claims require real, assessable proof, not speculation. The appellant's status as an OKU and lack of medical evidence of permanent disability were key factors. Similarly, for knee replacement costs, the court favored the respondents' recent medical report over the appellant's, aligning with Sabri Abdul Talib & Anor v Tiong Mee Kooi & Anor Cases where unmanifested future surgery was deemed unjust enrichment.

For general damages, the court increased the award from RM30,000 to RM38,000, referencing the Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards 2018 (suggesting RM18,000-RM30,000 for knee ligaments) but adjusting upward for inflation, rising living costs, and currency value as in Raji Transport Sdn Bhd & Anor v Idayu Zulkafli . This distinguished the localized, non-permanent injuries from more severe cases.

Key Observations

• "Mahkamah yang mendengar sesuatu rayuan hanya akan campur tangan dalam keputusan yang dibuat oleh hakim bicara sekiranya terdapat kekhilafan dari segi fakta dan undang-undang... atau jumlah gantirugi yang diawardkan... adalah terlalu tinggi atau terlalu rendah." (High Court affirming limited appellate role in quantum assessments.)
• "There is also a difference between loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity... It must be proved by evidence and not by mere speculation." (From Ngooi Ku Siong & Anor v Aidi Abdullah , rejecting speculative future loss claims.)
• "There is currently no clinical or radiological evidence of knee osteoarthritis. However due to the injury sustained, there is high risk... If progressive osteoarthritis does develop in future he may require undergoing total knee replacement." (Appellant's medical report, contrasted with respondents' finding of intact ligaments.)
• "The considerations of inflation and enhanced cost of living... are relevant factors in the assessment of damages." (From Raji Transport Sdn Bhd & Anor v Idayu Zulkafli , justifying upward adjustment.)
• "Beban pembuktian sentiasa terletak pada pihak yang menuntut." (Sections 101-102 Evidence Act 1950, emphasizing plaintiff's proof burden.)

Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal on future loss of earnings and knee replacement costs, finding no appealable error and upholding the Sessions Court's rejection due to insufficient evidence. However, it allowed the appeal on general damages, increasing the award to RM38,000, deeming RM30,000 inordinately low given economic changes. Costs of RM2,000 were awarded to the appellant. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary threshold for future-oriented claims in personal injury cases, potentially guiding lower courts to incorporate inflation in awards while maintaining deference to trial findings, which may lead to more consistent yet adaptable compensation in Malaysia's tort litigation.