Cheah Cheng Huat v Aig Malaysia Insurance Berhad (PA-12B-14-09/2022)

No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:

subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;… _______ NOTE —The original provision was "one hundred dollars " (Revised 1972). Previously "Five hundred ringgit"–see Act A279. Previously "Five thousand ringgit"–see Act A530. Now "ten thousand ringgit"–see Act A670. [emphasis mine] [9] I will refer to this current RM10,000.00 limit as “the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit”. BACKGROUND—THE SESSIONS COURT SUIT [10] In the Sessions Court suit, P sued D under several insurance policies that P purchased from D. P asserted that in 2012, as a result of his trips to Indonesia and Langkawi, he fell very ill. He made claims Page 4 of 22 under his insurance policies. D denied his claims. He sued D for breach of contract. [11] In his Statement Of Claim, P claimed unquantifiable damages (general, aggravated and exemplary), as well as quantifiable special damages. The special damages, from my computation of the particulars that P provided, amounted to over RM322,000.00. So, the amount claimed far exceeded the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit of RM10,000.00. [12] In its Defence, D asserted that P’s claims were not covered by the policies. D asserted that—

P was not in an accident or suffered an injury as defined in the policies;

P did not suffer any permanent injury;

P’s illness was not contracted during his trips to Indonesia or Langkawi. [13] The Sessions Court granted Judgment to P in the amount of only RM3,050.00. P appealed to the High Court. THE MEANING OF THE WORDS “THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE OR THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER” IN SECTION 28(1)(a) [14] The pivotal question to answer is—what is the meaning of the words “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” in section 28(1)(a)? Page 5 of 22 [15] On the one hand, there are case law authorities that opined that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit that prohibits an appeal must be related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim. I note here that if the claim is for an unquantifiable sum, the value of the subject matter of the suit has to be computed or determined. [16] One of the case law authorities which held that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit that prohibits an appeal is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim is Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v Tam Cheng Meng [2018] 8 MLJ 574 (HC); [2018] 3 AMR 597; [2018] 8 CLJ 361; [2018] MLRHU 394. [17] In Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon (supra), Justice Faizah Jamaluddin JC (later J) reasoned that section 28 does not specifically state “where the decision of the subordinate court is for a sum of RM10,000 or less’”. Instead, section 28 states “where the value in dispute or the value of the subject matter is for a sum of RM10,000 or less”. As such, the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the amount claimed, and not the amount of the Judgment granted. [18] In other words, section 28(1)(a) only prohibits appeals where the amount claimed or the value of the subject matter set out in the Statement Of Claim is RM10,000.00 or less. [19] On the other hand, there are case law authorities which decided that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit that prohibits an appeal must be related to the eventual Judgment sum granted by the subordinate courts. Page 6 of 22 [20] The case law authorities which decided that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit must be related to the eventual Judgment sum granted by the subordinate courts, include—

Lein Tiam Hock v Arumugam a/l Kandasamy [1999] 6 MLJ 129 (HC); [1999] 3 AMR 3670; [1999] 2 CLJ 853; [1999] 1 MLRH 406, per Justice Suriyadi J (later FCJ);

KC Chan Brothers Development Sdn Bhd v Tan Kon Seng & Ors [2001] 6 MLJ 636 (HC); [2001] 4 AMR 4533; [2001] 4 CLJ 659; [2001] 2 MLRH 267 per Justice Ramly Ali JC (later FCJ);

Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman v Dr Muhammad bin Omar [2023] 7 MLJ 830 (HC); [2022] AMEJ 1996; [2023] 1 CLJ 437; [2023] 1 MLRH 508, per Justice Leong Wai Hong JC. [21] In Lein Tiam Hock (supra), Justice Suriyadi reasoned it this way (at MLJ page 133-134)— …This provision [note: section 28(1)(a)] is plain and clear. To use the words of Mohamed Azmi SCJ in the case of Tan Weng Chiang v PP [1992] 2 MLJ 625 at p 630F: Where the meaning of words in the statute is plain and unambiguous, judges should not invent fancy ambiguities. Pursuing the tenets of interpretation, I am satisfied that the amount in dispute, or the subject-matter provided for under s 28, must relate to the decision of the subordinate court, and not to any sum claimed either by the plaintiff or the combined sum of the claim and counterclaim submitted by the defendant, if any. Apart from attaching weight or significance to that term 'decision', the provision of s 28 must also be read as a whole. Page 7 of 22 Indisputably, it is also beyond denial that the latter provision [note: section 28(1)(a)] does not have the terms of 'claim' or 'suit'… [note and emphasis mine] [22] In other words, the words of section 28 are clear, in that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the Judgment sum granted, and not to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim. [23] Additionally, section 28(1)(a) does not contain the words “claim” or “suit”. It does not say that “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter of the claim or the suit. The words “claim” or “suit” should not be read into section 28(1)(a), when the legislature did not place those words there. [24] In KC Chan Brothers Development (supra), Justice Ramly Ali held as follows (at MLJ page 640, paragraph I; page 641, paragraph A-B; page 642, paragraphs A-C, D-E, G-H; page 643, paragraph A-C)— Factual background All the respondents/plaintiffs were house buyers for low cost houses built by the appellant/defendant… For that purpose, all the respondents/plaintiffs had entered into their respective agreements with the appellant/defendant…All the respondents/plaintiffs filed their claims separately against the appellant/defendant in the Magistrate Court Temerloh, claiming for compensation on the ground that their houses were not built in accordance with the specifications provided in the approved plans, which were part of the Page 8 of 22 agreements. They claimed that the appellant/defendant had breached the agreements between them… At the end of the trial, the learned magistrate decided in favour of all the respondents/plaintiffs and found that the appellant/defendant was in breach of the respective agreements. In respect of the single storey houses, the respective respondents/plaintiffs were awarded a sum of RM8,400 as compensation together with costs and interests (for each of them). While in respect of the double storey houses, each of the respective respondents/plaintiffs were awarded a sum of RM4,500 as compensation together with costs and interests. The appellant/defendant, not being satisfied with all the 26 decisions, appealed to this court against all the 26 decisions… Whether the said decisions are appellable — s 28(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; It is not disputed that each and everyone of the 26 decisions involved award of less than RM10,000. The amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is less than RM10,000. The appellate civil jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of appeals from subordinate courts is governed by ss 27 and 28 of the Act… Section 28(1) of the Act provides: Subject to any other written law, no appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a subordinate court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law. Page 9 of 22 For the purpose of s 28(1) of Act, the amount in dispute or value of the subject matter shall not include interests and costs. It only refers to the main award… Thus, based on the above finding, it is clear that the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter in all the 26 appeals before this court is below RM10,000. It is also clear that by virtue of ss 27 and 28(1) of the Act, the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals except on a question of law. This is a question of jurisdiction which must be complied with strictly. It goes to the very core of the court's power in dealing with the appeal. Non-compliance with the provisions is fatal and would nullify the appeal. It is not a mere irregularity which can be cured by any other existing rules. It is a vital question to be determined and decided by the court at the beginning of the proceeding whether or not the respondent or any other party has raised it. The fact that the respondent does not raise the issue at the beginning of the proceeding does not mean that the court has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal even though the conditions set under s 28(1) of the Act are not fulfilled. [emphasis mine] [25] It was clear to Justice Ramly Ali that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the Judgment sum awarded, and not to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim. This is a requirement that must be complied with before an Appeal from the subordinate courts to the High Court can be heard. [26] In Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (supra), Justice Leong Wai Hong, after reviewing the case law authorities that he found relevant, sets out his opinion thus— [40] Mercifully, the issue whether the meaning of the phrase ‘the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter’ in s 28(1) of the CJA refers to the Page 10 of 22 adjudged sum or the sum claimed does not arise in this appeal as the adjudged sum and the sum claimed is the same ie RM3,000. On either interpretation the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is clearly below the threshold of ten thousand ringgit or less. . . [43] Since the public policy purpose of the filter in s 28(1) of the CJA is to prevent appeals on small sums from subordinate courts from clogging the High courts unless they concern a question of law, it makes sense that the phrase ‘the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter’ in s 28(1) of the CJA refers to the adjudged sum and not the sum claimed. Such an interpretation will also prevent a well-heeled litigant from oppressing the not so well-heeled litigant with further litigation costs on appeal that far exceeds the adjudged sum which will happen if the filter is not the adjudged sum. [emphasis mine] [27] In other words, even though the issue of whether the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit did not arise in the Appeal before him, he opined that as a matter of public policy, it “makes sense” that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the Judgment sum and not the amount claimed. DECISION AND THE REASONS FOR IT [28] Having perused and considered the facts and circumstances of this Sessions Court suit, as well as these case law authorities on section 28(1)(a), I am of the view that the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the eventual Judgment sum granted, rather than the amount of the claim stated in the Statement Of Claim. My reasons are as follows. Page 11 of 22 [29] First, it is obvious that the purpose of the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is to prohibit Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court by imposing a monetary limit. The objective is to reduce the number of Appeals to the High Court. [30] The civil suit monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court is RM100,000.00—section 90 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (SCA). The civil suit monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court is RM1 million—section 65 of the SCA. [31] Therefore, suits where the monetary claim is RM10,000.00 or less, are filed in the Magistrates’ Court, and not in the Sessions Court. [32] So, if the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim, only Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court will be prohibited by section 28(1)(a), as claims for “RM10,000.00 or less” are filed only in the Magistrates’ Court, not in the Sessions Court. Sessions Court suits, where the amounts claimed, in all cases, exceed RM10,000.00—will not be similarly prohibited. [33] If the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit (RM10,000.00) is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim, then the Court system will have an incongruous circumstance where only Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court are prohibited by section 28(1)(a). Appeals from the Sessions Court will not be likewise prohibited. [34] Put differently, as only Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court are prohibited, only Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court will be reduced. Page 12 of 22 Section 28(1)(a) will hardly achieve its purpose of reducing Appeals from the subordinate courts. [35] Second, if the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim, then plaintiffs who are better advised will endeavour to craft their Statements Of Claim in such a way as to pray for an amount that exceeds RM10,000.00 in every suit. Plaintiffs will make such claims to avoid the application of the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit. Section 28(1)(a) will be subject to manipulation and abuse. [36] It does not matter to such plaintiffs whether they will be granted the claim for an amount that is more than RM10,000.00 or not. They will just pray for an amount that is more than RM10,000.00 to circumvent the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit on Appeals. This manner of pleading is geared towards getting around the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit, so that they can retain the right to appeal to the High Court, whatever may be the eventual Judgment sum or outcome. [37] As a result, section 28(1)(a) will not be able to prohibit the Appeals from such contrived claims. [38] Thirdly, if the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim, then plaintiffs will also craft their Statements Of Claim in such a way as to include unquantifiable amounts, such as general damages, and aggravated and exemplary damages, or for non-monetary reliefs such as declaratory relief or injunctive relief. Page 13 of 22 [39] Such claims will evade the operation of the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit on Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court. [40] Section 28(1)(a) would then scarcely achieve the purpose that it was enacted to do. [41] Fourthly, a scrutiny of section 28(1)(a) reveals that it says: “no appeal shall lie to the High Court”, from “a decision of a subordinate court”, where “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is RM10,000.00 or less. The “amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” does not refer to or relate to the claim. The “amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” refers to or relates only to the “decision” of the subordinate court, namely the Judgment sum. [42] Section 28(1)(a) refers first to a “decision” and then to “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter”, which compels the interpretation that “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” relates to the eventual Judgment sum granted (the decision appealed from). [43] Fifthly, I analysed the possible outcomes or scenarios from this Sessions Court suit. P claims in his Statement Of Claim the quantifiable amount of about RM322,000.00, in addition to unquantifiable general, aggravated and exemplary damages. The amount claimed far exceeds the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit of RM10,000.00. [44] The possible outcomes or scenarios from the suit are—

P’s claim is dismissed; or Page 14 of 22

Judgment is granted for an amount that is RM10,000.00 or less; or

Judgment is granted for an amount that is more than RM10,000.00. [45] In the first scenario, where P’s claim is dismissed—if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim—the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit P’s Appeal to the High Court, because the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim is for RM322,000.00 plus general, aggravated and exemplary damages, which is far more than RM10,000.00 i.e. not “RM10,000.00 or less”. P can appeal. [46] On the other hand, if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the Judgment sum, the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would prohibit P’s Appeal to the High Court, because the Judgment sum (which is zero, since the claim was dismissed) is certainly “RM10,000.00 or less”. P cannot appeal. (Note: D would not appeal because P’s claim is dismissed.) [47] In the second scenario, where Judgment is granted for an amount that is “RM10,000.00 or less” (as it is here: RM3,050.00)—if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim—the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit P from appealing to the High Court in any event, as the amount claimed is for RM322,000.00 plus general, aggravated and exemplary damages, which far exceeds RM10,000.00 i.e. not “RM10,000.00 or less”. P can appeal. Page 15 of 22 [48] Similarly, D can also appeal. The section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit D from appealing in any event, since the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim (RM322,000.00 plus general, aggravated and exemplary damages) is more than RM10,000.00 i.e. not “RM10,000.00 or less”. [49] D can appeal for the claim to be dismissed entirely or for an amount that is even lower than the Judgment sum: RM3,050.00. D can appeal. [50] On the other hand, however—if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the Judgment sum—then the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would prohibit P’s Appeal to the High Court, since the Judgment sum of RM3,050.00 is “RM10,000.00 or less”. P cannot appeal. [51] Likewise, this interpretation would prohibit D from appealing. D too cannot appeal. [52] In the third scenario, where Judgment is granted for an amount that is more than RM10,000.00—if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim—then the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit P’s Appeal to the High Court in any event, because the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim (RM322,000.00 plus damages) is, at the outset, more than RM10,000.00 i.e. not “RM10,000.00 or less”. P can appeal. Page 16 of 22 [53] D can also appeal. The section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit D from appealing, similarly since the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim (RM322,000.00 plus damages) is already more than RM10,000.00. D too can appeal. [54] D can appeal for the claim to be dismissed entirely or for an amount that is even lower than the Judgment sum: RM3,050.00. D can appeal. [55] On the other hand—if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is related to the Judgment sum—the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit P’s Appeal to the High Court, since the Judgment sum is more than RM10,000.00 i.e. not “RM10,000.00 or less”. P can appeal. [56] Again, D can also appeal. The section 28(1)(a) monetary limit would not prohibit D from appealing—for the same reason. [57] I have tabulated the scenarios discussed above for this suit and set them out in Table form, to demonstrate which interpretation of “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” brings about a reduction of Appeals from the subordinate courts— Page 17 of 22 [58] This analysis discloses that if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim rather than the Judgment sum, the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit is ineffective to prohibit or reduce the number of Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court. [59] Instead, for all three scenarios— if “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is interpreted to be related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim—the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit appears to enable more Appeals, since both P and D can appeal against the Judgment, instead of reducing Appeals. No. Scenario If the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit (RM10k) is interpreted to mean the—

If P’s claim is dismissed Amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim P can appeal Judgment sum P cannot appeal 2. If the Judgment granted is RM10K or less Amount claimed in the Statement of Claim P can appeal D can appeal Judgment sum P cannot appeal D cannot appeal 3. If the Judgment granted is more than RM10K Amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim P can appeal D can appeal Judgment sum P can appeal D can appeal Page 18 of 22 [60] The interpretation that “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” is related to the amount claimed brings about outcomes that are contrary to the purpose of the section 28(1)(a) monetary limit— which is to prohibit or reduce Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court. [61] I therefore find that the meaning of the words “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter”—is related to the eventual Judgment sum granted by the subordinate courts (the decision appealed from), and not related to the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim. [62] And so, for these reasons, I find that since the Judgment sum of RM3,050.00 is “RM10,000.00 or less”, this Appeal is incompetent and is of no effect—unless P can satisfy this Court that the Appeal is on a question of law. THIS APPEAL IS NOT ON A QUESTION OF LAW [63] What remains to be determined is whether P’s Appeal is on a “question of law”? [64] To see whether P has appealed against the Sessions Court Judgment on a question of law, I refer to P’s Notice Of Appeal (NOA) and his Memorandum Of Appeal (MOA). P’s NOA does not state that P is appealing on a question of law, nor does it pose a question of law for the determination of the Appeal. Page 19 of 22 [65] As for his MOA, P’s initial MOA contains eight grounds. I find that these eight grounds are all questions of fact, or questions relating to the evidence that purport to prove the facts. These eight grounds are not questions of law. [66] Subsequently, P amends his MOA to include a ninth ground of appeal. I similarly find that this ninth ground of appeal is also not a question of law. [67] P’s ninth ground of appeal is that the Sessions Court erred in law when the learned Judge failed to consider the Certificate Of Medical Attendance dated 19.8.2013 (marked as ID3), which was handwritten by a Dr Khor Hui Ying, as an exhibit. P argues that the Sessions Court Judge should have accepted and considered this Certificate as part of the body of evidence. [68] I find that whether the Sessions Court Judge should have accepted and considered the Certificate is inconsequential because Dr Khor Hui Ying did not take the stand to testify about its contents. It is obvious to me that this ground is a question of fact. It is a question that relates to the evidence that purports to prove a particular fact. It is not a question of law. [69] In summary, I find that P has not satisfied the exception to the section 28(1)(a) prohibition. P’s Appeal is not on a question of law. Page 20 of 22 CONCLUSION [70] Having considered the grounds of the learned Justices in the case law authorities referred to above, and for the reasons that I have alluded to, I am of the view that the meaning of the words “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” in section 28(1)(a) should be construed to be related to the eventual Judgment sum granted by the subordinate courts. [71] This interpretation of the meaning of the words “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” to be related to the eventual Judgment sum granted, and not the amount claimed in the Statement Of Claim, has the following effect—as there is a specific Judgment sum granted (or the value of the Judgment can be ascertained)—it gives clarity to the litigants about their right to appeal. And by that clarity, it will have the effect of prohibiting and reducing the number of Appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court. The parties will be more circumspect and practical when they consider appealing against a Judgment sum that is “RM10,000.00 or less”. [72] And since this Appeal is not on a question of law, I find that this Appeal is prohibited by section 28(1)(a) of the CJA, and is rendered incompetent. Page 21 of 22 [73] I allow D’s preliminary objection and strike out P’s Appeal with costs of RM12,000.00 to be paid by P to D. Dated 28 November 2023 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Appellants/Plaintiff: Hanis Nabila Binti Rosli [Messrs. C P Ang & Co., Pulau Pinang] For the Respondent/Defendant: Wong Wai Leong & Alvin Kua Tze Min [Messrs. Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong, Kuala Lumpur] Legislation referred to:

Section 28(1)(a) of the Courts Of Judicature Act 1964.

Section 65 and 90 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. Page 22 of 22 Cases referred to:

Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v Tam Cheng Meng [2018] 8 MLJ 574 (HC); [2018] 3 AMR 597; [2018] 8 CLJ 361; [2018] MLRHU 394.

Lein Tiam Hock v Arumugam a/l Kandasamy [1999] 6 MLJ 129 (HC); [1999] 3 AMR 3670; [1999] 2 CLJ 853; [1999] 1 MLRH 406.

KC Chan Brothers Development Sdn Bhd v Tan Kon Seng & Ors [2001] 6 MLJ 636 (HC); [2001] 4 AMR 4533; [2001] 4 CLJ 659; [2001] 2 MLRH 267.

Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman v Dr Muhammad bin Omar [2023] 7 MLJ 830 (HC); [2022] AMEJ 1996; [2023] 1 CLJ 437; [2023] 1 MLRH 508.