Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 MarsdenLR 1246

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YAP BOON HWA – Appellant
Versus
KEE WAH SOONG – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCC)(W)-1068-05/2018]

Petitioner Advocates:Rajasundram Ponnusami,Kamala Saraswathy Kathirravellu ,Respondent Advocate: Avinder Singh Gill

Assessment of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation must reflect actual loss, deducting any benefits received.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The court examined the principles of fraudulent misrepresentation and assessed damages under contract law based on key contractual terms. Facts of the Case: The appeal concerns a claim by the appellant against allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in a Joint Venture Agreement, with damages awarded to the respondent for legal fees incurred. Findings of the Court: The Court found that the original award for damages was unjustified in amount, leading to adjustments being made.

Issues: The main questions revolved around the proper assessment of damages resulting from fraudulent misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that damages should be reflective of actual loss, stating, "the actual damage flowing from the contract is necessarily the loss minus the costs of acquisition."

Result: The appeal was allowed in part, with damages awarded at RM55,455.35, substituting the earlier RM373,613.55.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal and damages awarded related to fraudulent misrepresentation. (Para 1 , 2)

[1] The Appeal before us is by the appellant/2nd plaintiff against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated 26 April 2018 in assessment of damages in favour of the respondent/defendant in the sum of RM373,613.75 as damages for fraudulent misrepresentation committed by the appellant/2nd plaintiff on the respondent/defendant.

[2] After considering the written and oral submissions of parties, unanimously we allowed the appeal in part. We allowed damages to the respondent/defendant, in the form of the claim for legal fees incurred in defending the action of fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent/defendant is therefore entitled to the following (refer to grounds of judgment of the learned High Court Judge at RR Jilid 1 pp 31-32):

a) RM600.00 for item 7, witness fees;

b) RM54,855.35 for items 9-15 (refer to p 32 of the grounds of learned High Court Judge. We were told that item 10 has a mistake in the dates, namely "3 March 2013" should read "3 March 2016").

Therefore we allowed the sum of RM600.00 + RM54,855.35 as damages that is due to the defendant.

We set aside the decision of the learned High Court Judge in awarding RM373,613.55 as damages and substitute it with the amount of RM55,455.35 (RM600.00 + RM54,855.35).

We further ordered that each party to bear his own costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 MarsdenLR 1246

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAYAP BOON HWA – AppellantVersusKEE WAH SOONG – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCC)(W)-1068-05/2018]

Assessment of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation must reflect actual loss, deducting any benefits received.

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YAP BOON HWA – Appellant
Versus
KEE WAH SOONG – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCC)(W)-1068-05/2018]