Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4806
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PEMBINAAN KOTA LAKSAMANA (MELAKA) SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
DAMANSARA REALTY BERHAD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No D2-22-67-1996]
A trial judge holds the jurisdiction to assess damages in injunction cases, not the registrar, reaffirming that a separate legal entity cannot claim damages for its subsidiary's losses.
Headnote:(A) Injunctions - Nature of assessment of damages - Court’s jurisdiction - The court determined that the registrar cannot assess damages in claims related to injunctions; this authority rests with the trial judge unless an order has been made for assessment. (Paras 1, 7)
(B) Separate legal entity - Corporate liability - The court held that a company cannot claim damages for losses incurred by its subsidiary without direct involvement of the subsidiary in the proceedings, reaffirming the principle of separate corporate entities. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs appealed against an assessment of damages of RM13 million following an injunction granted relating to a failed sale of property initiated by the defendants. The trial judge had not ordered a damages assessment, which was contested by the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the order of the Senior Assistant Registrar concerning damages, directing the matter back to the trial judge for proper assessment to be made.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registrar or the trial judge had the authority to assess damages in the context of an injunction, and whether the 1st defendant could claim damages for its subsidiary's loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the proper party to assess damages related to an injunction is the trial judge, noting the importance of having the trial judge determine claims based on the specific facts of the case, especially in consideration of the principles governing separate legal entities.
Result: Appeal allowed; prior order set aside with costs to the plaintiffs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs failed to substantiate claims against the defendants. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for and against assessment of damages. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court must assess injunction-related damages. (Para 7) |
[1] This is my JUDGMENT in respect of the plaintiffs' appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) who allowed for leave to assess damages related to an injunction and the order of assessment made amounting to RM13 million with interest and costs.
[2] It must be noted in the instant case: (i) the trial judge has not ordered assessment of damages; the defendants' application for leave to assess damages is based on the general terms of the injunction relating to usual undertaking as damages. That part of the prayer of the order for injunction dated 13.1.2003 states as follows:
"... memberi akujanji untuk mematuhi apa-apa perintah yang mungkin diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini berhubungan dengan gantirugi yang mana Mahkamah mungkin berpendapat selepas ini bahawa Defendan-Defendan telah menanggungi, jika ada, disebabkan oleh perintah ini, yang Plaintif-Piaintif harus membayar."
[3] It is the contention, inter alia , of the learned counsel for the appellant that there must be an order for assessment of damages by the trial judge before the learned SAR can proceed with the assessment of damages. The application for leave to claim damages as well as to assess the same enclosure 128 reads as follows:
"1. Bahawa Defendan Pertama dibenarkan untuk menuntut gantirugi terhadap Plaintif-plaintif akibat daripada suatu perintah injuksi bertarikh 29.01.1996 yang telah dikeluarkan terhadap Defendan-Defendan di atas permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif;
2. Gantirugi khas dan am;
3. Faedah;
4. Segala gantirugi tersebut di atas adalah ditaksirkan oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar dan dibayar oleh Plaintif-Piaintif kepada Defendan Pertama;
5. Kos permohonan ini adalah dibayar oleh Plaintif-Piaintif kepada Defendan Pertama;
6. Apa-apa relif lain Mahkamah yang mulia ini anggap layak dan suaimanfaat".
[4] The parties have relied on the following cases: Syarikat Weifong Industries Sdn Bhd v. KL Trading & Agency House Sdn Bhd & Ors, ; Kenwood Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Profile Spec (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors (No 2); [2007] 2 CLJ 732; Soo Boon Siong @ Saw Boon Siong v. Saw Fatt Seong and Soo Hock Seang (As Estate Representative Soo Boon Kooi @ Saw Boon Kooy (Deceased) 7 Ors; [2008] 1 MLJ 27; [2008] 1 CLJ 365; Fraser & Neave Ltd v. Yeo Hiap Seng Ltd; ; Tan Kim Hai And Sons Enterprises Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Tan Kim San And Sons Sdn Bhd & Ors (Hiap Lee (Choong Leong & sons) Brickmakers Sdn Bhd & Anor, Intervenes);[1996] 5 MLJ 593; [1996] 2 BLJ 502; [1997] 1 AMR 823; Popular Industries Limited v. Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd; [1989] 3 MLJ 360; [1990] 2 CLJ (Rep) 635; Chong Khee Sang v. Pang Ah Chee; [1984] 1 MLJ 377; Sunlite Textile Sdn Bhd v. Motilal Realty Sdn Bhd; [2007] 5 MLJ 640; [2008] 7 CLJ 97; Tenaga National Berhad v. Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2011] 1 MLJ 752 ; [2011] 1 CLJ 491 ;People's Insurance Co (M) Sdn Bhd v. People's Insurance Co Ltd & Ors; [1986] 1 MLJ 68; Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd; [1994] 3 MLJ 777; [1995] 1 CLJ 15; Mohamed Syed Fathima Shahul Hamid & Ors v. MMS Syed s/o Shaik Dawood & Ors; [2004] 5 MLJ 168; Nanyang Union Sdn Bhd v. Gloveline Industries (M) Sdn Bhd; [2006] 2 MLJ 485; [2006] 1 CLJ 873; Eikobina (M) Sdn Bhd v. Mensa Mercantile (Far East) Pte Ltd; [1994] 1 MLJ 553; [1994] 2 CLJ 6; Joseph Thambirajah v. Bank Buruh (M) Bhd; [2008] 2 MLJ 773; People Realty Sdn Bhd v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd & Anor; [2007] 6 MLJ 595; [2008] 1 CLJ 73; Ong Chong Wah & Anor v. Seyhuat Sdn Bhd; [2001] 4 MLJ 524; [2002] 8 CLJ 696; The Board of Trustees of the Sabah Foundation & Ors v. Datuk Syed Kechik bin Syed Mohamed & Anor; [2009] 7 MLJ 441; [2009] 2 CLJ 107; [1997] 4 AMR 3422; Griffith v. Blake [1884] Ch 474; TSC Education Sdn Bhd v. Kolej Yayasan Pelajaran Mara & Anor; [2002] 5 MLJ
