The Plaintiff must prove damages and causation in breach of contract claims; failure to do so results in nominal damages.

JUDGMENT

(Assessment)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

Introduction

[1] This is the assessment for the quantum of damages against the Defendant ("this Assessment") pursuant to the Kuala Lumpur High Court Judgment dated 30 December 2020 ('the Judgment') consequential to the unlawful termination of contract by the Defendant.

A. Facts Of The Case

[2] The Plaintiff is a software company which specializes in providing ICT services including cabling infrastructure, network security, network & server solution and software development.

[3] The Defendant is a co-operative society established under the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 and primarily established for the benefit of police officers.

[4] The Defendant had acquired ICT services and had engaged the Plaintiff to provide such services particularly for the project named "Kerja- Kerja Penambahbaikan Sistem ICT Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad" ("the Project").

[5] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for unlawfully terminating the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant pursuant to the Letter of Offer dated 9 May 2016 ("the LO").

[6] The Kuala Lumpur High Court ("the Trial Court') through the Judgment has pronounced the following:

a) that the LO is a valid contract;

b) that the termination contract by the Defendant by way of the Defendant's letter to the Plaintiff dated 31 March 2017 is a breach of contract;

c) that the operation costs for the months between May 2016 to April 2017 is to be assessed;

d) that an interest of 5% per annum on the amount taxed on the assessed cost of operations from the date of the Order up to the date of realisation;

e) that intellectual costs for the development of the application of the ICT system and migration is to be assessed;

f) that the costs under the Judgment after full trials and costs based on the solicitors-client basis is to be assessed; and

g) that the general damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages are to be assessed.

[7] For the ease of reference, the details of the Plaintiff's claims under this Assessment are reproduced here:

Intellectual Property and Hardware Infrastructure

Operational Costs

Made up of Overheads (salaries/statutory payments) and administrative costs:

a) Overheads (salaries/statutory payments)

b) Administrative Cost

General Damages (Loss of Profit/Loss of Earnings)

Costs

B.This Assessment

[8] During this Assessment, the Plaintiff had called three (3) witnesses:

PW1 Ir. Dr Abdul Rahman bin Mohamed Tasir, an ICT expert witness

PW2 Puan Laila Kartini Irdawati Bt Hashim, the Plaintiffs Financial Officer (Accountant)

PW3 Encik Mohd Kamarul Redza bin Mohamad Ramli, the Plaintiffs Chief Executive Officer

[9] Similarly, the Defendant called three (3) witnesses during this Assessment. They were:

DW1 Encik Mohd Fazli Azran bin Abdul Malek

DW2 Puan Munirah bt Sheriff

DW3 Puan Nazarhanim bt Mohamad Razak

C. The Plaintiff's Case

[10] The Plaintiff placed great reliance on the Judgment obtained and argued that nominal damages is not appropriate as the Court had held that the unilateral termination by the Defendant is unlawful and amounted to breach of contract.

D. The Defendant's Case

[11] The crux of the Defendant's submission is that this Court should only award nominal damages to the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the losses it had suffered was due to the Defendant's termination of the Project.

[12] Not only that, the Defendant argued that it is difficult to assess the damages as per the Judgment because there was no agreed date as to when the Plaintiff should begin their work.

[13] At all material time, the Defendant stood firm with its defence that the Plaintiff had begun the Project on its own will and without instruction from the Defendant.

E. Decision And Findings Of The Court

[14] After perusing the evidence and testimonies tendered throughout this Assessment and the submissions by the parties, and without any access to the ground of the Judgment, it is my finding that the Plaintiff can only be awarded w