Damages under the law of tort as applied in Malaysia is based on corrective compensation scheme under the principle of restitutio in integrum. The principle lays that the purpose of damage is to restore the plaintiff to its original position if the tort had not been committed. Whilst this principle lays no apparent problem in its implementation; however, in the realm of calculating damages for future losses, the Courts have adopted an assortment of calculations and assessment. The dependency and future loss of earnings are regulated by the statutory provisions in the form of Section 7(3)(c) and 28A(2)(c) of the Civil Law Act, 1956 respectively. However, other future losses such as permanent future nursing care have been left in vain to the extent that the Courts seem to recognize 5 distinct multipliers for calculating permanent future nursing care, which bears contrasting results. Even the current Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 2019 has still not addressed this issue. The need for a consistent methodology is crucial as justice demands that a similar standard is applied to all parties in order to achieve a consistent outcome for the like cases. The law cannot treat like cases with different outcome. This paper highlights the fallacy that there is a consistent standard in assessing continuing and permanent future loss in a personal injury claim, especially with regards to nursing care and medical expenses; which in turn results in contrasting outcomes.
Books
Ahangar, M. A. H. (2009). Damages Under Malaysian Tort Law - Cases and Commentaries. Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell Asia.
Cane, P. (2013). Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (8th edn.). Cambridge University Press.
Dass, K. S. (1975). Quantum in Accident Cases. Malaysia: Malaysian Law Publishers.
Rutter, M. F. (1988). Handbook on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death in Singapore and Malaysia (1st edn). Singapore: Malayan Law Journal.
Reports Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2018). Abridged Life Tables, Malaysia, 2016 - 2018. Malaysia.
Statutes
Civil Law Act, 1956.
Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 2019.
Cases
Asainar bin Sainudin & Anor v. Mohamad Salam bin Sidik, [2002] 5 MLJ 104.
Bujang Mat & Anor v. Lai Tzen Hai & Anor, [2004] 4 CLJ 127, p. 144-145. [2004] 6 MLJ 376; [2004] 5 AMR 181; [2004] 1 MLRH 404.
Chandra Sekaran a/l Krishnan Nair & Anor v. Ayub bin Mohamed & Anor, [1994] MLJU 82.
Chandran v. Mohammad Razali bin Jaafar, [1992] MD 911.
Dass Darmalingam v. Mohd Fauzi Mohd Salleh & Anor, [2008] 8 MLRH.
Inderjeet Singh v. Mazlan bin Jasman, [1995] 2 MLJ 646.
John s/o Netchumayah v. Marimuthu a/l Govindan, (1985) Kuala Lumpur HC No. P804/1983.
Keh Yong Siang & 5 Ors v. Oh Chit Yit & Anor (Ng Chee Kian – Third Party), [2012] 2 PIR 7.
Lai Chi Kay & Ors v. Lee Kuo Shin, [1981] 2 MLJ 67.
Lai Wee Lian v. Singapore Bus Services, [1984] 1 MLJ 325; [1984] 3 WLR 63.
Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority, [1979] 2 All ER 910.
Marappan & Anor v. Siti Rahmah bte Ibrahim, [1990] 1 MLJ 99; [1990] 1 CLJ 32.
McConnel v. Wright, [1903] 1 Ch 546.
Mohd Yusof bin Abdul Ghani v. Tee Song Kee & Anor, [1995] MLJU 344.
Muhamad Sukri Jaapar v. Mohmad Yusri Ahmad & Anor, [2014] MLRHU.
Muhammad Milshaddiq bin Juri v. Rahmat bin Jamil, [1993] MLJU 418.
Murtadza Bin Mohamed Hassan v. Chong Swee Pin, [1980] 1 MLJ 216.
Nazori bin Teh & Anor v. Teh Lye Seng & Anor, [1995] 3 MLRH 235; [1997] 1 AMR 706.
Ng Chun Loi v. Hadzir & Ors, [1993] 1 CLJ 323.
Swee Boon King v. Thong Tin Sing & Anor, [1994] MD 1224.
Tan Ah Kan v. The Government of Malaysia, [1997] 2 AMR 1382.
Wong Li Fatt William (an infant) v. Haidawati bte Bolhen & Anor, [1994] 2 MLJ 497.
Yu Mea Lian & Anor v. Government of Terengganu & Ors, [1997] MLJU 252.
Zainab bte Ahmad v. Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd, [2000] 5 MLJ 620.
Zamri Md Som & Anor v. Nurul Fitriyaton Idawiyah Nahrawi, [2002] 1 CLJ 309.
In-Text Citation: (Husaini, 2019)
To Cite this Article: Husaini, M. F. (2019). The Fallacy of Consistency in Assessing Permanent Future Loss in a Personal Injury Claim: The Malaysian Practice Dilemma. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(7), 714–725.
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
