Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 17 of 2022

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 17 of 2022
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 17 of 2022

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 13 December, 2022 | 0

    “Whether a claim for a more expensive bionic prosthesis as opposed to a mechanical prosthesis, be allowed for an accident victim?”

    Case:

    CHUA KAY HOCK & ANOR v. LEE HOON POI [2022] 7 CLJ 669

    Brief Facts:

    • An accident had occurred on the 17 November 2015 around 7.50pm between the first appellant’s (“Chua Kay Hock”) motorcycle and a car driven by the respondent (“Lee Hoon Poi”).
     
    • The second appellant was riding pillion with Chua Kay Hock and was also injured.
     
    • As the result of the accident, Chua Kay Hock’s right lower limb was amputated at the above knee level.
     
    • Before the accident, Chua Kay Hock was working in Singapore as a senior operations executive/supervisor.
     
    • He went back to work in Singapore after the accident in June 2016 and was paid full salary. He tendered the resignation in September 2016.
     
    • After hearing evidence led by parties, the learned Sessions Court Judge (LSCJ) made her findings of fact that Lee Hoon PHoon Poi was 100% liable for the accident.
     
    • In terms of the quantum awarded, in particular, it was the finding of facts of the LSCJ that bionic prosthesis prescribed by Chua Kay Hock’s expert is more suitable for him and she awarded RM2 million for the said prosthesis.
     
    • Upon appeal to the High Court, the learned High Court Judge affirmed most of the findings of the LSCJ.
     
    • However, the award of bionic/microprocessor prosthesis by the LSCJ was set aside by the High Court Judge, and the award was reduced to RM620,370 being the cost for mechanical prosthesis.
     
    • Chua Kay Hock then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL- APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • The Court of Appeal found that the learned High Court Judge did not err in fact or in law in concluding that the costs of a state of the art prosthesis at RM 2 million was not sustainable for reasons that:
     

             i)  Chua Kay Hock was holding the position of a supervisor at the material time;

     

            ii)  Chua Kay Hock had resumed work after the accident but chose to tender his resignation after four months

                 upon resumption of work;

     

           iii)  Chua Kay Hock did not produce any evidence from his employer that he was unable to work as before due to

                 his disabilities or residuals; and

     

           iv)  The awards for actual loss of earnings in the sum of RM96,000 and future loss of earnings in the sum amount

                 of RM960,000 had been made. If a bionic prosthesis were to be allowed together with loss of future earnings, it

                 would unreasonably set a precedent for all plaintiffs in similar circumstances to claim for a bionic prosthesis

                 instead of a medium, reasonably priced hydraulic prosthesis leg.

     
    • The Court of Appeal also held that the hydraulic leg was used widely in the public service/government sector and known to be popular in Malaysia over the years.
     
    • More importantly, the sophisticated state of the art bionic leg is not widely used in the country and known to lack facilities for after-sales service or repair if it breaks down.
     
    • Additionally, a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages is required to mitigate his loss and is entitled only to a reasonable compensation and not exorbitant awards, save on grounds of necessity in exceptional circumstances, when a reasonable alternative is wholly unavailable or inappropriate.
     
    • However, the Court of Appeal also mentioned that there must be sufficient justification shown by the victim for the award of compensation for well above the trend of contemporary awards.
     
    • The Court of Appeal stated that the High Court Judge had correctly applied the principles and taken into account important and relevant considerations in arriving at his conclusion on the type of prosthesis that should be awarded to the appellant to reasonably and appropriately compensate him and to avoid unjust enrichment.
     
    • Therefore, although a bionic prosthesis has a much better functionality, the court, in deciding whether the bionic prosthesis is more suitable than the mechanical prosthesis for an accident victim, must weigh the evidence and relevant circumstances so as to ensure that the claim is justified and the claimant is appropriately compensated.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil