(1) the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for the following 4 causes of action (4 Causes of Action) due to the sales of rice products (Infringing Products) of the first defendant company (1st Defendant):-

(a) copyright infringement;

(b) trade mark infringement;

(c) tort of passing off; and

(d) tort of unlawful interference with the first plaintiff company's (1st Plaintiff) business;

(2) the Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiffs the following damages for the 4 Causes of Action:-

(a) compensatory damages; and

(b) non-compensatory damages as follows:-

(i) statutory damages (Statutory Damages) pursuant to s 37(1)(d) and (8) of the Copyright Act 1967 (CA);

(ii) additional damages under s 37(7) CA (Additional Damages);

(iii) exemplary damages; and

(iv) aggravated damages;

(3) all the above damages shall be assessed by me (Assessment);

(4) the Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiffs interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the damages assessed by the Court (Assessed Damages) from 2 June 2017 until full payment of the Assessed Damages; and

(5) costs of the Assessment (if any) shall be decided after the Assessment.

B. Novel Issues

[2] This Assessment raised the following two novel questions:

(1) whether expert evidence by an accountant is required under s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 ( EA ) and O 40A rr 1 to 3 of the Rules of 2012 (RC) to prove loss of business profits suffered by the 1st Plaintiff as compensatory damages for the 4 Causes of Action; and

(2) whether the Court may consider expert evidence regarding "EBITA" (earnings before interest, tax and amortization) in assessing compensatory damages for the 4 Causes of Action. If "yes", should the Court use "Average EBITA Margin" or "Actual EBITA Margin"?

C. Assessment Proceedings

[3] The Plaintiffs have filed affidavits affirmed by the following persons in support of their claim for damages:

(1) Puan Jadwa Abu Bakar, the 1st Plaintiff's Branch Manager for Kuala Lumpur; and

(2) Encik Azhar Kasim (Encik Azhar), the Sales and Marketing Manager of the 1st Plaintiff.

[4] The following affidavits had been affirmed on behalf of the Defendants in this Assessment:

(1) the second defendant (2nd Defendant); and

(2) Encik Ong Koon Liang (Encik Ong), a practising accountant.

[5] The parties in this case have agreed for all the deponents in the Assessment (Deponents) to be cross-examined regarding the conflict in their affidavits (Cross-Examination). This judgment is based on the Deponents' affidavits as well as oral evidence given by the Deponents in the Cross-Examination and re-examination.

D. Assessment Of Compensatory Damages

D(1). Judicial Approach

[6] In assessing compensatory damages, I adopt the following approach:

(1) a plaintiff bears the evidential burden to prove:-

(a) the defendant's infringement of the plaintiff's Intellectual Property (IP) rights has "caused" loss to the plaintiff - please see the judgment of Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) (as he then was) in the Federal Court case of Taiping Poly (M) Sdn Bhd v. Wong Fook Toh & Ors, [2011] 1 MLJ 798 , at para 17. This is a question of causation of the plaintiff's loss;

(b) the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not too remote and can be recovered in law. This concerns the issue of remoteness of damage suffered by the plaintiff; and

(c) the amount