The Case of Chan Chin Ming & Anor versus Lim Yok Eng

For this case review, among the cases that has been chosen by us is the case of Chan Chin Ming & Anor v Lim Yok Eng [1994] 3 MLJ 233. The reasons we choose the said case is because in this case alone, we can applied it to many legal issues pertaining to dependency claim. This case basically is related to section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956. It is a High Court case that later been appeal by defendant to the Supreme Court and was handled by three judges. They are Peh Swee Chin, Edgar Joseph Jr and Muhamed Dzaiddin SCJJ. This case was reported by the founder of our Kulliyah, Prof Ahmad Ibrahim.

This case was about a plaintiff who claimed for dependency claims against the defendant. The plaintiff was Lim Yok Eng, a mother of unmarried 25-year old son who involved in fatal accident with defendant, Chan Chin Ming. Plaintiff had claimed for loss of support against the defendant due to the accident. Plaintiff claimed in the High Court was successful. The High Court award the plaintiff RM 144, 000 on the basis figure of RM 750 per month. RM750 is the average monthly amount that the deceased given to plaintiff, his mother prior to his death.

Defendant then appealed to Supreme Court (Johor Bahru). The appeal was first, that the RM 750 should be reduced by half. This was because the mother only spent half of the said amount for herself. The balance she used it for her other three children who still went to school. The second appeal was court bound to follow the fixed number of years’ purchase as set out in section 7(3)(iv)(d) of the Civil Law Act 1956 in claim by parent for loss of support of an unmarried child.

The legal issue in this case was first, whether the sum of RM 750 should be reduced by about half because the plaintiff spent only...

... middle of paper ...

...statute may be interpret using many means and approaches, which will lead to different result. To have a different opinion with other people in law is not something wrong. You may have different opinion about a law. However, the important thing is when you have different opinion and justification pertaining to certain law, your opinion must be supported by authority. May it be statutory or case law. The next point that we can learn from the case, even though a law may seem harsh and hard towards someone, it still had to be enforce. As for example, the action of the court in reducing the RM 750 to RM 375 is surely harsh towards the plaintiff. However, if the court did not do so, there will be flood gate in the future. Many people when claimed for loss of support will include his brother and sister as well, which actually will be unfair on the part of the defendant.