Back
2024 MarsdenLR 381
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FANTASY RUBY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PADIBERAS NASIONAL BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-559-10/2015]
The plaintiff must prove both the fact and quantum of damages in a breach of contract claim; failure to do so may result in an award of nominal damages.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Principles of assessment of damages - The plaintiff, an authorized agent for an association, claimed wrongful termination of an agreement leading to damages - High Court declared termination invalid and ordered assessment of damages - Court found plaintiff failed to prove damages but awarded nominal damages of RM5,000.00. (Paras 1, 11, 28, 33)
(B) Burden of Proof - It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prove the damages claimed, both in fact and quantum, to the satisfaction of the court. (Paras 15, 34)
(C) Nominal Damages - Nominal damages may be awarded when loss is shown but not the amount, affirming a legal right infringement. (Paras 29, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff facilitated the importation of broken rice under an agreement with the defendant, who wrongfully terminated the agreement. The plaintiff claimed damages but failed to provide sufficient evidence of the losses incurred.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had not proven the damages suffered due to the termination of the contract, leading to an award of nominal damages.
Issues: The key issues were whether the plaintiff could prove the damages resulting from the wrongful termination and the appropriate measure of damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to substantiate claims for damages with credible evidence.
Result: Nominal damages of RM5,000.00 awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 103 - Assessment Of Damages)
Introduction
[1] After a full trial, the High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and declared the termination by the defendant of the agreement dated 20 November 2013 ("2011 Agreement") as invalid. Consequent to the finding, the High Court ordered for general damages payable to the plaintiff by the defendant to be assessed. On appeal, this decision was affirmed. Hence the parties were before this Court for assessment of damages.
[2] On mutual agreement of parties, this Court initially ordered for the proceedings for assessment of damages to be carried out by way of exchange of affidavits save for the expert evidence. When the proceedings for assessment of damages eventually begun, there was no other affidavit evidence offered from either party other than the evidence of the respective experts.
[3] Upon assessing the evidence of the respective experts and considering the deliberation of both learned counsel in submissions, this Court made a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove its damages on the balance of probabilities. Despite that, this Court awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of RM5,000.00. The plaintiff appealed against the decision.
Brief Matrix Of Facts
[4] The plaintiff was the authorized agent for "Persatuan Pengusaha Bee Hoon Malaysia" ("Bee Hoon Association") to facilitate the importation of broken rice on behalf of the Bee Hoon Association. The right to import broken rice was held by the defendant pursuant to a certain concession agreement with the Government.
[5] Pursuant to the 2011 Agreement entered into between the parties, the then Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry ("Ministry of Agriculture") granted to the plaintiff a permit to import broken rice. The import permit had a tenure often years and carried with it an import quota of 5,000 metric tonnes per month. Under the 2011 Agreement, the defendant was responsible in facilitating the importation of broken rice by the plaintiff.
[6] The 2011 Agreement became effective in April 2011 and was to continue in force until the defendant successfully renewed its concession agreement with the Government. The 2011 Agreement provided, among other things, that when the defendant's concession was renewed the plaintiff and the defendant shall enter into a fresh agreement. Secondly, the fresh agreement must carry terms similar to the 2011 Agreement. Thirdly, the fresh agreement must continue to be in force for a period of ten years from April 2011. Fourthly, the fresh agreement must be entered into between the parties within one week after renewal of the defendant's concession.
[7] Sometime in September 2012, the defendant's concession was renewed. The renewal was for a period of ten years expiring in January 2021. Instead of entering into a fresh agreement with the plaintiff as agreed, the defendant terminated the 2011 Agreement. The termination occurred on 20 November 2013, that was approximately a year after the defendant's concession was renewed.
[8] Subsequently, the plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful termination of the 2011 Agreement. The High Court found in favour of the plaintiff and declared the termination as invalid. The High Court also ordered for general damages to be assessed and paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the decision, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court . The plaintiff accordingly proceeded with its application for assessment of damages as originally ordered by the High Court .
[9] In the assessment proceedings, the plaintiff attempted to introduce new documents and towards that end filed Enclosures [131] and [132], These documents purported to be a report produced by Khazanah Research Institute entitled "The Status of Paddy and Rice Industry in Malaysia". The learned counsel for the defendant objected to
