STEP BY STEP REMEDIES FOR TORT (FATAL CLAIM)

FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM SECTION 7 CLA

Introduction Loss of Support Calculation
MULTIPLIER x MULTIPLICAND
●​ Fatal accident claims are covered under Section 7
Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA). Multiplier = 60 - Age of Death / 2
●​ Section 7(5) CLA: Claim must be filed within x
three years from the date of death. Multiplicand = (Income - Personal Expenses) x 12
○​ Case: Lim Chong Piau v Ang Swee
Cheng & Anor [1997] → If the claim is
Bereavement
not filed within three years, the right to
●​ Section 7(3A) & Section 7(3B) CLA: Fixed
claim is extinguished, regardless of its
bereavement sum of RM30,000.
merits.
○​ Case: Noor Famiza Zabri v Awang
●​ Dependency Claim (Section 7(2) CLA): Who
Muda [2012] → Bereavement is not
qualifies as a dependent?
subject to interest.
○​ Case: Chan Chin Ming v Lim Yok Eng
○​ Case: Hazimah Muda v Ab. Rahim
[1994] → Financial contributions, even
[1996] → Bereavement compensation is
indirect ones, qualify as "support" under
divided equally between eligible
dependency claims.
dependents.
○​ Case: James anak Jack & 2 Ors v Ting
○​ Case: Hooi Seong v Ooi Pay Yeong
Kuok Hua [2006] → A child above 18
[1995] → The court cannot adjust
can claim if financial dependency is
bereavement based on intensity of grief.
proven.

Financial Loss / Loss of Support Funeral Expenses

●​ Section 7(3)(ii) CLA: Claimable only if
●​ Section 7(3)(iv)(a) CLA: Only financial loss that
reasonable and necessary.
directly benefits dependents is recoverable.
○​ Case: Tan Ah Hong v Mahalingam
○​ Case: Saw Hau Huat v Mohd Nor
[1962] → Funeral expenses must be
Taya [1997] → Personal living expenses
strictly proven.
must be deducted before calculating loss
○​ Case: Schneider v Eisovitch [1960] →
of support.
Only "reasonably necessary" funeral
○​ Case: Chan Chin Ming v Lim Yok Eng
costs are recoverable.
[1994] → Only the portion of earnings
○​ Case: Johnson v Baker [1825] →
benefiting dependents is recoverable.
Luxury/additional items (e.g., marble
●​ Prerequisite conditions to qualify for
cat statue) are not recoverable.
dependency claim (Section 7(3)(iv)(a) CLA):
○​ Deceased must be below 60 years old at
death. Loss of Services
■​ Case: Jennifer Anne Harper ●​ Section 7(3)(iv) CLA: Cost of replacing
v Timothy Theseira [1995] → caregiving services is claimable.
Dependency claim rejected ○​ Case: Neo Kim Soon v Subramaniam
because the deceased was [1995] → Hiring a maid to replace the
above 60. deceased’s services is compensable.
○​ Deceased must have been in good health
before the accident.
■​ Case: Loh Hee Thuan v Loss of Service
Mohd Zani Abdullah [1995] (Age Until Dependance - Current Age)
→ Good health means the x
(Monthly Cost of Maid x 12)
deceased could lead a
functional life.
○​ Income must be lawful.
■​ Case: Chua Kim Suan v
Government of Malaysia
[1990] → Unlawful earnings
(e.g., unlicensed tuition)
cannot be claimed.
○​ Work-related expenses must be
deducted.
■​ Case: Chang Chong Foo v
Shivanathan [1992] →
Expenses like transport and
meals must be deducted from
gross income
STEP BY STEP REMEDIES FOR TORT (FATAL CLAIM)
ESTATE CLAIM SECTION 8 CLA
Introduction Transport Expenses
●​ Estate Claim (Section 8 CLA): Covers pain & ●​ Case: Abdul Hamid v Tan Chu Kim [1969] → A
suffering, medical expenses, funeral expenses, plaintiff requires ongoing treatment and claims for
loss of earnings before death. travel costs to attend physical therapy sessions
weekly. If supported by receipts and proof of
medical necessity, courts will usually allow
Pain and Suffering Family Visitation
●​ Case: Thangavelu v Chia Kok Bin [1981] → ●​ Case: Kasirin Kasmani v The Official
Pain and suffering claimable only if the deceased Administrator & Anor [1990] → the court
was conscious before death. awarded RM400 to cover the transport expenses of
●​ Compensation is determined based on: the plaintiff’s family members, who traveled to the
○​ Compendium of Personal Injuries hospital to support and care for the plaintiff.
Report → Court uses precedents for
award determination.
Dependency Claim – Loss of Support
●​ Case: Chan Chin Ming v Lim Yok Eng [1994]
Loss of Earnings Before Death → Financial support must be proven.
●​ Case: Chua Kim Suan v Government of ●​ Case: Esah Ishak v Kerajaan Malaysia [2006]
Malaysia [1990] → Only lawful income can be → Disabled siblings can be dependents if
claimed. financial dependency is proven.
●​ Case: Saw Hau Huat v Mohd Nor Taya [1997] ●​ Case: Loh Hee Thuan v Mohd Zani Abdullah
→ Deduct work-related expenses before [1995] → Deceased must have been in good health
calculating compensation. before the accident.

Loss of Earnings Loss of Support Calculation

(Salary - Expenses) MULTIPLIER x MULTIPLICAND
x
(Survival Period) Multiplier = 60 - Age of Death / 2

Multiplicand = (Income - Personal Expenses) x 12

Medical Expenses
●​ Case: Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [1983]
→ Must be strictly proven with receipts and Bereavement
medical reports. ●​ Section 7(3A) & Section 7(3B) CLA: Fixed
●​ Case: Seah Yit Chen v Singapore Bus Co Ltd RM30,000, shared equally among dependents.
[1990] → Reasonable medical costs are ●​ Case: Hazimah Muda v Ab. Rahim [1996] →
recoverable. Bereavement must be divided equally.
●​ Case: Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] → ●​ Case: Noor Famiza Zabri v Awang Muda [2012]
Private hospital costs are recoverable only if → The statutory amount is fixed and cannot be
necessary. increased.

Nursing Care Funeral Expenses

●​ Case: Yang Salbiah v Jamil Harun [1981]→ ●​ Section 8 CLA: Recoverable under estate claims.
Courts allow for the cost of hiring a caregiver or ●​ Case: Tan Ah Hong v Mahalingam [1962] →
nurse if family members are unable to provide Strict proof required.
the required care level. ●​ Case: Schneider v Eisovitch [1960] →
●​ Case: Marappan v. Siti Rahmah [1990]→ The Sentimental items not recoverable.
court held that the claim shall be granted as the
plaintiff mother resign from the job just to take
care the Plaintiff

Cost of Nursing Care

(Expenses for Nursing Care)
x
(Survival Period)
STEP BY STEP REMEDIES FOR TORT (FATAL CLAIM)
Loss of Services Types of Damages
●​ Case: Neo Kim Soon v Subramaniam [1995] →
Cost of hiring a maid to replace deceased’s Compensatory Damages
household work is compensable.
●​ Restores the plaintiff’s position if the tort had not
occurred.
Other Related Claims (Education Cost, ●​ Case: Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd
Tuition Fee) (1980) → Compensation should cover both loss of
●​ Case: Esah Ishak v Kerajaan Malaysia [2006] earnings and loss of quality of life.
→ Dependency claims extend to educational ●​ Case: Watson v Powles (1968) → Damages for
expenses if financial support was provided by pain and suffering must be reasonable.
deceased.
Nominal Damages

Additional Expenses ●​ Awarded when rights are violated but no financial

(Age Until Dependance - Current Age) loss is suffered.
x
●​ Case: Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh Brar
(Monthly Cost x 12)
(1987) → Nominal damages awarded as no real
loss occurred.
●​ Case: Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook
Kum (1969) → Nominal damages affirm legal
rights despite no financial loss.

Contemptuous Damages

●​ Small damages awarded when the court

disapproves of the claim.
●​ Case: Newstead v London Express Newspaper
(1940) → A trivial sum was granted as the case
was weak.
●​ Case: Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers
Ltd (2002) → Contemptuous damages awarded in
a defamation suit.

Aggravated Damages

●​ Awarded for malicious intent, such as false

imprisonment or defamation.
●​ Case: Roshairee Abdul Wahab v Mejar Mustafa
Omar & Ors (1997) → Awarded for malicious
false imprisonment.
 STEP BY STEP REMEDIES FOR TORT (FATAL CLAIM)
Case Law Only (Including Summary) 21.​ Marappan v Siti Rahmah (1990) → The plaintiff’s
mother resigned from work to care for the plaintiff,
making the claim valid.
1.​ Lim Chong Piau v Ang Swee Cheng & Anor (1997) → If a
claim is not filed within three years, the right to claim is lost.
22.​ Abdul Hamid v Tan Chu Kim (1969) → Transport
expenses for medical treatment are claimable.
2.​ Chan Chin Ming v Lim Yok Eng (1994) → Even indirect
financial contributions qualify as support for dependency
23.​ Kasirin Kasmani v The Official Administrator &
claims.
Anor (1990) → Courts awarded RM400 for family
visitation transport expenses.
3.​ James anak Jack & 2 Ors v Ting Kuok Hua (2006) → A
child above 18 can claim if financial dependency is proven.
24.​ Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd (1980) →
Compensation should cover both loss of earnings and
4.​ Saw Hau Huat v Mohd Nor Taya (1997) → Personal living
loss of quality of life.
expenses must be deducted before calculating loss of support.
25.​ Watson v Powles (1968) → Damages for pain and
5.​ Jennifer Anne Harper v Timothy Theseira (1995) →
suffering must be reasonable and based on specific
Dependency claim rejected because the deceased was above 60.
injuries.
6.​ Loh Hee Thuan v Mohd Zani Abdullah (1995) → Good
26.​ Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritam Singh Brar (1987) →
health means the deceased could lead a functional life.
Nominal damages awarded when no real loss occurred.
7.​ Chua Kim Suan v Government of Malaysia (1990) →
27.​ Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook Kum (1969)
Unlawful earnings (e.g., unlicensed tuition) cannot be claimed.
→ Nominal damages affirm legal rights despite no
8.​ Chang Chong Foo v Shivanathan (1992) → Work-related financial loss.
expenses like transport and meals must be deducted.
28.​ Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1940) →
9.​ Noor Famiza Zabri v Awang Muda (2012) → Bereavement is Contemptuous damages awarded when the court
not subject to interest. disapproves of the claim.

10.​ Hazimah Muda v Ab. Rahim (1996) → Bereavement 29.​ Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2002) →
compensation must be divided equally between eligible Contemptuous damages awarded in a defamation case
dependents. where reputational harm was minor.

11.​ Hooi Seong v Ooi Pay Yeong (1995) → The court cannot 30.​ Rajaletchumi & Anor v Angela Soh Oon Kay (1971)
adjust bereavement based on intensity of grief. → Emotional distress damages awarded in addition to
medical costs.
12.​ Tan Ah Hong v Mahalingam (1962) → Funeral expenses
must be strictly proven.

13.​ Schneider v Eisovitch (1960) → Only "reasonably necessary"

funeral costs are recoverable.

14.​ Johnson v Baker (1825) → Luxury/additional funeral items

(e.g., marble cat statue) are not recoverable.

15.​ Neo Kim Soon v Subramaniam (1995) → Hiring a maid to

replace the deceased’s household work is compensable.

16.​ Thangavelu v Chia Kok Bin (1981) → Pain and suffering

compensation applies only if the deceased was conscious before
death.

17.​ Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood (1983) → Medical expenses

must be strictly proven with receipts and reports.

18.​ Seah Yit Chen v Singapore Bus Co Ltd (1990) → Reasonable

medical costs are recoverable.

19.​ Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai (2004) → Private hospital costs
are recoverable only if necessary.

20.​ Yang Salbiah v Jamil Harun (1981) → The cost of hiring a

caregiver is recoverable if family members cannot provide care.