DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY/DEATH

Damages (Personal Injury or Death) - Action for - Civil Law Ordinance 1956, s 7(5) - 'Not more than one action shall be brought' - Meaning of

Amaravathy v Abdullah [1960] MLJ 298, High Court, Johore Bahru

The plaintiff, Amaravathy, was injured in a road accident caused by the defendant, Abdullah. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had already brought an action against another person, who was also involved in the accident, and that the plaintiff was therefore barred from bringing a second action.

The court held that the plaintiff was not barred from bringing a second action. The court held that the Civil Law Ordinance 1956, s 7(5), which provides that "not more than one action shall be brought" in respect of the same cause of action, does not apply to cases where the actions are brought against different defendants.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to bring a second action against the defendant because the defendant was a different person from the other person against whom the plaintiff had brought the first action.



Damages (Personal Injury or Death) - Action for - Contribution from co-tortfeasor - Claim for - Defendant amending statement of defence to include counterclaim for contribution - Whether defendant time-barred from instituting proposed counterclaim - Whether claim for contribution a cause of action in tort - Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67), ss 8(3)(b), (4) & 10(1)(c)

Lee Sen Lan & Anor v Mah Kwee Hock [1990] 2 MLJ 157, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiffs, Lee Sen Lan and Lee Siew Lan, were injured in a road accident caused by the defendant, Mah Kwee Hock. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable because he was not the only tortfeasor. The defendant also pleaded that he was entitled to contribution from the other tortfeasor, who was not a party to the proceedings.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was time-barred from instituting a counterclaim for contribution. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim for contribution within three years of the date of the accident, but had not filed a counterclaim within that time.

The court held that the defendant was not time-barred from instituting a counterclaim for contribution. The court held that the defendant's knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim for contribution was not imputed to the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant was therefore entitled to file a counterclaim for contribution at any time after the plaintiffs had filed their claim for damages.

The court also held that the claim for contribution was a cause of action in tort. The court held that the defendant was therefore entitled to claim contribution from the other tortfeasor, even though the other tortfeasor was not a party to the proceedings.





Damages (Personal Injury or Death) - Action for - Dependency claim - Statutory multiplier - Whether court may interfere with the fixed statutory multiplier in the calculation of loss of earnings in dependency claims - Civil Law Act 1956 ss 7(3)(iv)(d), 28A(2)(d)(i)

Ibrahim bin Ismail & Anor v Hasnah bte Puteh Imat (as beneficiary and legal mother of Bakri bin Yahya and substituting Yahaya bin Ibrahim) & Anor and another appeal [2004] 1 MLJ 525

The plaintiffs, Ibrahim bin Ismail and Hasnah bte Puteh Imat, were the beneficiaries of the estate of Bakri bin Yahya. Bakri had been killed in a road accident caused by the defendants, Hasnah bte Puteh Imat and Yahaya bin Ibrahim. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for loss of dependency. The plaintiffs argued that the court should not apply the fixed statutory multiplier in the calculation of loss of earnings. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory multiplier was too low and that it did not take into account the special circumstances of the case.

The court held that the court should apply the fixed statutory multiplier in the calculation of loss of earnings. The court held that the statutory multiplier was a fair and reasonable way of calculating loss of earnings. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any special consideration because of the special circumstances of the case.





Damages (Personal Injury or Death) - Action for - Employee injured in accident involving lorry belonging to employer and driven by driver employed by employer - Driver to blame for accident - Whether employee entitled to claim damages from employer or from driver

Tan Peng Loh v Lee Aik Fong & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ 74, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur

The plaintiff, Tan Peng Loh, was an employee of the defendant, Lee Aik Fong. The plaintiff was injured in an accident while driving a lorry belonging to the defendant. The driver of the lorry was also an employee of the defendant.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim damages because he was not acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages from the defendant. The court held that the driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court held that the defendant was therefore vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for his injuries, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. The court also awarded the plaintiff damages for his wife's loss of dependency.

The case of Tan Peng Loh v Lee Aik Fong is an important case in Malaysian law. The case establishes that an employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees when the employees are acting in the course and scope of their employment.