2025 MarsdenLR 1833
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
TOMMY THOMAS & ORS – Respondent
Petitioner Advocates:Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah,Sarah Abishegam as McKenzie Friend ,Respondent Advocate: Lambert Rasa-Ratnam,Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi,Colin Yoong Shern Zian
Judgement Key Points
Key Holdings
- Damages for reputational loss and emotional distress are recoverable under breach of statutory duty if causal link is established. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Statutory immunity under Section 111 LPA inapplicable where act constitutes breach of statutory duty, as it is not done "under the Act". (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Economic loss and loss of professional opportunity recoverable under breach of statutory duty if linked to protection of livelihood under the statute and sufficiently proven. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Aggravated damages available for heightened harm from defendant's knowing disregard of statutory procedure, but exemplary damages not awarded absent oppressive conduct by government servant or profit motive. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Damages assessment guided by principles of moderation, proportionality, and proof of actual loss; modest awards appropriate where evidence limited. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Facts
- Malaysian Bar breached s 99(1) LPA by publishing "Motion Against Shafee Abdullah" on website and tabling at AGM instead of referring to Disciplinary Board; motion criticized plaintiff's conduct as ad-hoc Deputy Public Prosecutor. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Procedural History
- Plaintiff's claims for defamation and conspiracy dismissed at High Court and Court of Appeal; Federal Court allowed appeal solely on breach of statutory duty, remitting for damages assessment against Malaysian Bar. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Court's Findings on Damages
- Reputational loss and injury to feelings: RM200,000 (modest due to limited evidence, ongoing practice, but considering dissemination to 15,000 Bar members). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Loss of professional opportunity: RM100,000 (inferred from client concentration despite lack of specific proof). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Mental stress: RM20,000 (modest for emotional distress implied by "damnified" finding, despite no medical causation evidence). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Aggravated damages: RM20,000 (for institutional carelessness in known procedure). (!) (!) (!)
- Exemplary damages: None. (!) (!)
- Total award: RM340,000. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of damages post breach of duty (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. factual background leading to damages claim (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. scope of federal court's decision (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. statutory immunity under s 111 of the lpa (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. claims for reputational harm under statutory duty (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. claims for economic loss and its substantiation (Para 52 , 64) |
| 7. aggravated damages and their justification (Para 72 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 8. principles of moderation in damages assessment (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 9. final assessment of damages awarded (Para 98 , 99) |
Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:Introduction
[1] This is the assessment of damages following a finding by the Federal Court of a breach of statutory duty by the Malaysian Bar. The breach arose under s 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (" LPA ").
[2] In its judgment, the Federal Court held that the Malaysian Bar had committed a breach of statutory duty. The breach occurred when the Malaysian Bar published a motion entitled "Motion Against Shafee Abdullah" on its official website and subsequently tabled the said motion
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
