When I attended the General Paper (CLP exam) class at Brickfields College sometime in September 2004, the lecturer told us that the case of Chan Chin Ming (Supreme Court) was the authority on deduction for a personal injury and fatal accident claim.
Towards the later part of the CLP preparation, I came across the cases like Ibrahim bin Ismail (Court of Appeal) and Cheng Bee Teik (Court of Appeal) which departed from the guideline in Chan Chin Ming supra.
I was pretty confused at that time. When I answered my General Paper, I quoted Ibrahim bin Ismail and Cheng Bee Teik as the authorities. I deliberately left out Chan Chin Ming as I was running out of time to complete the discussion.
Court of Appeal in the case of Noraini Bt Omar v Rohani bin Said (Judgment date:17 Feb 2006) put all this uncertainty in rest. The case reconciled the position taken by Chan Chee Meng, Ibrahim Ismail and Cheng Bee Teik.
The court held that:
1. Chan Ching Ming, been a Supreme Court decision, is binding on the Court of Appeal.
This is in contrary with the decision of the Ibrahim Ismail and Cheng Been Teik.
2. In the case of Chan Ching Ming, the deceased was unmarried. Such loss of support would have reduced or ceased in the event of the deceased son getting married had he lived. Thus there was a deduction of one-third.
3. In the case Ibrahim bin Ismail and Cheng Bee Teik, the deceased was married. Thus, no deduction was allowed.
4. Court of Appeal is the apex court for civil actions and suits in respect of motor vehicle accidents. The hierarchy are namely Session Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.
5. The Federal Court is the apex court for all personal injury and fatal accidents not arising from motor accidents. The case in point is Takong Tabori, where the deceased died in an explosion at the premises of a bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment