This case involved a civil litigation where the plaintiff Yong Moi Sin sued the government of Malaysia for damages from false imprisonment and loss of reputation resulting from being wrongly arrested. The sessions court and high court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The court of appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to sessions court. The sessions court then awarded the plaintiff RM10,500 for false imprisonment and RM150,000 for loss of reputation. The defendants appealed. The high court found the false imprisonment award was fair but found the sessions court erred in its assessment of damages for loss of reputation, reducing the award to RM50,000.
This case involved a civil litigation where the plaintiff Yong Moi Sin sued the government of Malaysia for damages from false imprisonment and loss of reputation resulting from being wrongly arrested. The sessions court and high court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The court of appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to sessions court. The sessions court then awarded the plaintiff RM10,500 for false imprisonment and RM150,000 for loss of reputation. The defendants appealed. The high court found the false imprisonment award was fair but found the sessions court erred in its assessment of damages for loss of reputation, reducing the award to RM50,000.
This case involved a civil litigation where the plaintiff Yong Moi Sin sued the government of Malaysia for damages from false imprisonment and loss of reputation resulting from being wrongly arrested. The sessions court and high court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The court of appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to sessions court. The sessions court then awarded the plaintiff RM10,500 for false imprisonment and RM150,000 for loss of reputation. The defendants appealed. The high court found the false imprisonment award was fair but found the sessions court erred in its assessment of damages for loss of reputation, reducing the award to RM50,000.
This case involved a civil litigation where the plaintiff Yong Moi Sin sued the government of Malaysia for damages from false imprisonment and loss of reputation resulting from being wrongly arrested. The sessions court and high court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The court of appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case back to sessions court. The sessions court then awarded the plaintiff RM10,500 for false imprisonment and RM150,000 for loss of reputation. The defendants appealed. The high court found the false imprisonment award was fair but found the sessions court erred in its assessment of damages for loss of reputation, reducing the award to RM50,000.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
1.
Title And Citation Of The Case
Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor v Yong Moi Sin, HIGH COURT (JOHOR BAHRU) CIVIL APPEAL NO (MT 1) 12-99 OF 2005 Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor vs Yong Moi Sin [2010] 3 MLJ 862
2. Facts Of The Case
Civil litigation Yong Moi Sin sued Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor The plaintiff, a gold merchant, sued for damages for false imprisonment and loss of reputation after being wrongly arrested and remanded on suspicion of possessing stolen items. The claim was dismissed by the sessions court, and his subsequent appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Leave was granted by the Court of Appeal, and his appeal was allowed. The case was subsequently remitted to the sessions court. The learned judge (SCJ) awarded the plaintiff damages of RM 10,500 for false imprisonment, RM150, 000 for loss of reputation and interest. Hence, this appeal by the defendants against the decision.
3. Issue
Whether the award for false imprisonment and loss of reputation was fair and reasonable.
4. Decision
1.False Imprisonment.
The court found that the award for false imprisonment was fair and reasonable.
2.Loss of Reputation.
However, in the process of assessing damages for loss of reputation, the SCJ had apparently acted on some wrong principle of law. Damages for false imprisonment includes damages for injury to liberty, and injury to feeling which is another form of loss reputation. Even where there had been no physical injury, substantial damages may be awarded for indignity, discomfort or inconvenience. Where liberty had been interfered with damages is given to vindicate the plaintiff`s right even though no pecuniary damages had been suffered. Accordingly, the award of RM 150,000 was set aside and substituted with an award of RM 50,000.
5. Reasoning
1.False Imprisonment
There was nothing to show that the SCJ`s award for false imprisonment was so extremely high as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate or that the SCJ had acted on wrong principle of law or took into consideration irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters.
2.Loss of Reputation
Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff did not obtain leave to appeal for false imprisonment. The SCJ misdirect himself in fact and in law when he proceeded to asses the damages for false imprisonment. The claim for false imprisonment was dismissed by the then trial SCJ. The Court of Appeal order dated 28 April 1999 dismissed the plaitiff1s application to appeal on false imprisonment and only allowed leave to appeal on the issue of whether the search compiled with s 62(2) and s 62(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The claim for defamation was abandoned by the plaintiff`s then counsel. The SCJ had acted outside his power or exceeded his jurisdiction and was functus officio (Hock Hua Bank Bhd v Sahari bin Murid [1981] 1 MLJ 143; [1980] 1 LNS 92; Penang Port Commission v Kanawangi s/o Seperumaniam [2006] 3 MLJ 306; 2006] 2 CLJ 480; Bandar Nilai Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Jurutera Perunding REC Sdn Bhd) v Muthusamy a/l Etti Arunchala Goudan & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 626; [2205] 5 CLJ 11;Panglima Aces Sdn Bhd v Highway Bricks Works (Serendah) Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 CLJ 628). Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the order for leave clearly states that the plaintiff entitled to damages for trespass and all other consequential relief arising thereform. The tort of trespass includes an action for damages for false imprisonment. Trespass and false imprisonment is pleaded in the statement of claim. The order granting leave also states that leave to appeal was granted in respect of trespass and the issue as to whether perayu tersebut adalah berhak ke atas ganti rugi dan relief lain bagi pencerobohan. The final order of the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court order dealing with the three issues which includes false imprisonment and trespass. The matter was remitted to the sessions court for assessment of damages yang layak diterima oleh perayu together with interest and costs. This includes loss of reputation, feelings, dignity, and the like (Sailajanand Pande, Appelant v Suresh Chandra Gupta & Anor AIR 1969 Patna 194; State of Rajastan v Rikhabchand AIR 1961 Rajasthan 64; Thompson v Commisioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498). When assessing damages for fitnah the SCJ had considered matters such as the plaintiff`s reputation which are claimable under the tort of false imprisonment. In this context, fitnah is not defamation per se but for loss of reputation, dignity, and other relief lawfully claimable under the heading of false imprisonment under the tort of trespass. The SCJ was bestowed with a discretion by the Court of Appeal which directed him to assess the damages yang layak diterima oleh perayu after ruling that there was trespass. The award of RM 150,000 by the SCJ is neither excessive nor unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. The amount of the damages is purely in the discretion of the SCJ and such discretion is not to be lightly interfered with in appeal. In particular, the SCJ cited Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran [2001] 4 MLJ 161, Pang Fee Yoon v Piong Kien Siong & Ors [1993] 3 MLJ 189, and Liew Yew Tiam &Ors v Cheah Cheng Hoc & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 385. All the abovementioned three cases relate to defamation and are plainly distinguishable in its facts and law. The court finds that the award of RM 150,000 for loss of reputation is manifestly excessive.
6. Dissenting Judgement
7. Analysis
It is clearly stated in the above, the issue of this case is whether the award for false imprisonment and loss of reputation was fair and reasonable? The plaintiff had been suffered of the false action of the defendants, and he deserves his claim. However, the award that decided by the session court has put the defendants in the debt that they dont owe. Finally, the final decision by the learned judge of this case, Vernon Ong JC, has proven that the ultimate aim of law, is to achieve justice.
