Assessment of damages
8 cases · May 2025 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
7 25
1 26
2025–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Failure to comply with return order; valuation based on full value; depreciation irrelevant. Res Judicata — Quantities and liability conclusively determined; cannot be reopened during assessment appeal. Appellate Intervention — “Plainly wrong” threshold not met; findings of fact not to be disturbed. Business Records Evidence — Purchase Orders admissible; makers not required. Mitigation of Loss — Duty does not override express court order; no obligation to collect returned goods. Non-Compliance with Court Order — Party cannot benefit from own default. 1 As a result of failure to comply with an Order for Specific Performance — To construct sewerage piping — Subsequently Plaintiff sought for consequential reliefs — A Consent Order was recorded for damages assessed -Whether the 1st Defendant can revisit the issues raised during the liability stage — Two types of damages sought by Plaintiff — The cost of constructing the sewerage piping and loss of profits/rental — Other issues raised — The date of damages to be assessed — Whether it is the date of breach or the date of hearing — Whether the principle established in Wrotham Park’s case — That damages might reasonably have been demanded as a quiet pro quo for relaxation of a covenant or contractual obligation — That is recognised in Malaysia and Singapore applicable to the present case — Whether the claim for the cost of construction of the sewerage piping proven — Whether failure to call the makers of the quotation fatal — Whether the approximations or estimates of the cost stated in the quotation can be accepted — Whether the 1st Defendant’s consultant engineer is an expert witness — Whether the claim for loss of rental proven — Whether the evidence provided by the registered valuer on loss of rental rebutted by the first Defendant — Failure by the 1st Defendant to adduce any valuation on the loss of rental for comparison — The Plaintiff’s land is occupied by a furniture showroom — Whether deductions therefore ought to be made from the loss of rental award — Whether the previous judgment awarding interest on damages is binding on the parties — Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek for costs on an indemnity basis. 1 Account of profits — Loss of goodwill and reputation — Intangible harm — Dilution of distinctiveness — Erosion of consumer confidence 1 assessment of damages after trial on liability is a continuation of the trial. Constructive trust — it is the duty of the Court to examine whether there are circumstances that would attract the intervention of equity and if there is, even at the assessment of damages stage, the Court may impose a constructive trust for the defendant to account for his ill- gotten gains. Adverse inference — if the defendant neglects, fails or refuses to account the Court should draw an adverse inference against the defendant. 1 This Judgment arising from an order of the Court of Appeal directing damages to be accessed following its declaration that a novation agreement, a repayment agreement and a guarantee were void, invalid and unenforceable, having entered into, in breach of a collateral — The Consent Order recorded before the Federal Court; for the High Court Judge to hear the assessment of damages proceedings afresh (“Declaration”)– A Corporate Adviser in this suit had been appointed to restructure the company pursuant to a failure to repay the Facility charged under Security (“the PCB Shares”) — The obligation to repay was held deferred until the success of the Restructuring Scheme — The Repayment Agreement was subject to the condition precedent, this was the Collateral Contract found by the Court of Appeal, preclude party from any entitlement to damages, negating any of entitlement to claim ownership over the PCB Share; that the Declaration as prevailing over the consequential orders — Damages may still be accorded under some other capacity or under some equitable duty arising from tort — Claim for damages arising from the wrongful and negligent sale of the PCB Shares is not established and must be dismissed — the status quo of the parties has reverted to what existed prior to the execution of those Agreements — Issues relating to remoteness, duty to mitigate, causation and general principles on proving damages are relevant — Claims for loss or damages from the failure of the restructuring scheme must be excluded as no sufficient causal link between that failure and the alleged loss and damages. The said sum held to be repaid back to the Plaintiff as a consequence from the breach of the Collateral Contract. 1 no statutory requirement for the assessment of damages must only be conducted by way of full trial where witnesses are called to give evidence before the court — the court has absolute discretion as it thinks just to order the manner in which evidence of any particular fact will be given at any trial including the assessment of damages — in any assessment of damages, evidence can be adduced either by a full trial where witnesses are present or by exchanging of affidavit evidence depending on the facts and complexity of the case — where damage is shown but its amount is not proved sufficiently or at all, the court will usually decree nominal damages 1 Whether the SCJ made an error of law in finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of RM932,400.00 — Whether the SCJ made an error of law in awarding the sum of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages 1 with an award for aggravated damages having been made by the trial judge, it is too late in the day for the defendant to assert during the assessment of damages stage that aggravated damages ought not to be awarded 1
Failure to comply with return order; valuation based on full value; depreciation irrelevant. Res Judicata — Quantities and liability conclusively determined; cannot be reopened during assessment appeal. Appellate Intervention — “Plainly wrong” threshold not met; findings of fact not to be disturbed. Business Records Evidence — Purchase Orders admissible; makers not required. Mitigation of Loss — Duty does not override express court order; no obligation to collect returned goods. Non-Compliance with Court Order — Party cannot benefit from own default. 1 case
As a result of failure to comply with an Order for Specific Performance — To construct sewerage piping — Subsequently Plaintiff sought for consequential reliefs — A Consent Order was recorded for damages assessed -Whether the 1st Defendant can revisit the issues raised during the liability stage — Two types of damages sought by Plaintiff — The cost of constructing the sewerage piping and loss of profits/rental — Other issues raised — The date of damages to be assessed — Whether it is the date of breach or the date of hearing — Whether the principle established in Wrotham Park’s case — That damages might reasonably have been demanded as a quiet pro quo for relaxation of a covenant or contractual obligation — That is recognised in Malaysia and Singapore applicable to the present case — Whether the claim for the cost of construction of the sewerage piping proven — Whether failure to call the makers of the quotation fatal — Whether the approximations or estimates of the cost stated in the quotation can be accepted — Whether the 1st Defendant’s consultant engineer is an expert witness — Whether the claim for loss of rental proven — Whether the evidence provided by the registered valuer on loss of rental rebutted by the first Defendant — Failure by the 1st Defendant to adduce any valuation on the loss of rental for comparison — The Plaintiff’s land is occupied by a furniture showroom — Whether deductions therefore ought to be made from the loss of rental award — Whether the previous judgment awarding interest on damages is binding on the parties — Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek for costs on an indemnity basis. 1 case
Account of profits — Loss of goodwill and reputation — Intangible harm — Dilution of distinctiveness — Erosion of consumer confidence 1 case
assessment of damages after trial on liability is a continuation of the trial. Constructive trust — it is the duty of the Court to examine whether there are circumstances that would attract the intervention of equity and if there is, even at the assessment of damages stage, the Court may impose a constructive trust for the defendant to account for his ill- gotten gains. Adverse inference — if the defendant neglects, fails or refuses to account the Court should draw an adverse inference against the defendant. 1 case
no statutory requirement for the assessment of damages must only be conducted by way of full trial where witnesses are called to give evidence before the court — the court has absolute discretion as it thinks just to order the manner in which evidence of any particular fact will be given at any trial including the assessment of damages — in any assessment of damages, evidence can be adduced either by a full trial where witnesses are present or by exchanging of affidavit evidence depending on the facts and complexity of the case — where damage is shown but its amount is not proved sufficiently or at all, the court will usually decree nominal damages 1 case
Whether the SCJ made an error of law in finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of RM932,400.00 — Whether the SCJ made an error of law in awarding the sum of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages 1 case
with an award for aggravated damages having been made by the trial judge, it is too late in the day for the defendant to assert during the assessment of damages stage that aggravated damages ought not to be awarded 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
ja-12bncc-3-09-2020
CHEE KONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. v SERBA DINAMIK SDN. BHD.
28 January 2026
MYHC
jb-22ncvc-30-06-2019
SIA HER YAM REALTY SDN BHD v 1. ) STRATA CENTURY SDN. BHD. 2. ) NATASRI SDN BHD
20 November 2025
MYHC
wa-22ip-13-03-2023
1. ) LEUNG KAI FOOK MEDICAL CO. PTE LTD 2. ) LEUNG KAI FOOK MEDICAL SDN BHD v NINSO GLOBAL SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai “TCT Home Centre (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd)
13 October 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-375-05-2019
MUSHARAKA VENTURE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD v 1. ) LUQMAN ZULHUSNI BIN ISMAEL 2. ) HAIRUL HISHAM BIN MOHAMAD SORADI 3. ) QUANTUM DESIRE SDN BHD
13 October 2025
MYHC
wa-28pw-277-10-2021
1. ) Good Quantum Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Datuk Chang Kok Chuang 3. ) Right Development Activities Sdn. Bhd. v Alliance Investment Bank Berhad
11 August 2025
MYHC
bl-24ncvc-5-01-2025
JYE AND PARTNERS SDN. BHD. v POO WEI JYE
7 July 2025
MYHC
wa-12bncvc-58-05-2024
Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd
28 May 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-431-07-2018
1. ) TAN SIEW HOOI 2. ) WONG PENG KWAN v 1. ) LIM LAY SOO 2. ) THEAN YAW YEONG 3. ) TETUAN THEAN & CO (DIDAKWA SEBAGAI SEBUAH FIRMA)
27 May 2025
MYHC