Landlords are not liable for tenant losses due to burglaries if tenancy agreements include exclusion clauses and if tenant negligence is proven.

i. Eight (8) pieces of LED Panels;

ii. Three (3) speaker systems;

iii. One (1) professional DJ Console Set;

iv. One (1) monitor

[1.12] Therefore the Plaintiff is claiming against the Defendant for:-

i. Special Damages for the sum of RM2,400,000.00;

ii. General Damages;

iii. Exemplary Damages;

iv. Interest on the said sum of RM2,400,000.00 at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of this writ until full settlement.

v. Costs; and

vi. Such further or other relief.

[2] Defendant's Case

[2.1] The premises is a part and parcel of a stratified building identified as "DNP Plaza Johor Bahru" ("the Project").

[2.2] The Plaintiff was the tenant and the Defendant was the landlord of the premises.

[2.3] The Plaintiff, as tenant, had exclusive possession of the premises at all material times.

[2.4] It is the Plaintiff's own duty to safeguard its properties kept in the premises.

[2.5] In the premises, the Defendant could not have owed any duty care to the Plaintiff in this respect and could not have been negligent as alleged or at all.

[2.6] Further or alternatively, it was an express term of the Tenancy Agreement set out in writing in Clause 6.04(c)(vi), that the Defendant should not be liable for any loss arising out of want of care of the security guards or by reason of any unauthorised entry of persons into the premises. The Defendant will refer to the said term at trial for its full terms and effect.

[2.7] At the material times, Management Corporation for the project had been duly formed in accordance with the Strata Title Act and provision of services including security service for the Common Areas was within the control of the Management Corporation to the exclusion of the Defendant.

[2.8] The alleged break-in and vandalism, which is not admitted, was not consented to, permitted and/or suffered by the Defendant, its servants or agents. In fact, when the matter was brought to the attention of the Defendant, the alleged break-in and vandalism would already had been perpetuated. The Defendant pleads the principle of res ipsa loquitur

[2.9] On the contrary, based on the report dated 18 May 2014, one of the alleged thieves was identified as a Mr Wooi, a former Club for the Plaintiff itself who appeared to be in possession of the keys to the premises.

[2.10] The Plaintiff did occupy and ran its businesses from the premises without any interference by the Defendant.

[2.11] Subsequent closure of its businesses before the occurrence of the alleged break-in and vandalism was entirely the Plaintiff's own decision.

[2.12] It was not a term of the tenancy that the Defendant had warranted that there would be no risk of break-in or vandalism on the premises. Quite to the contrary, there was the express Exclusion Clause in Clause 6.04 (c)(vi) of the Tenancy Agreement.

[2.13] In the circumstances, the Defendant could not have breached any fundamental term of the tenancy as alleged or at all.

[2.14] The Plaintiff's claim for lost of opportunity to sell its businesses is essentially a claim for Economic Loss.

[2.15] The alleged intended sale of its businesses, which is not admitted, was not reasonably foreseeable and/or was not reasonably within the parties' contemplation at the time of the Tenancy Agreement and are too remote for the Plaintiff to recover damages in respect thereof.

[2.16] In fact, to the contrary, it was an express term of the Tenancy Agreement in Clause 5.34(a) that the tenancy could not be assigned by the Plaintiff to any third party without the prior written consent of the Defendant which consent the Defendant was not obliged to give and further, by Clause 7.05(a), that on expiry of the term of tenancy, the Plaintiff is obliged to hand over all fixtures and fittings in the premises to the Defendant.

[2.17] In any event, the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant of the alleged intended sale in the first place.

[2.18] The Plaintiff's claim is thus