Appellate courts may intervene in damage awards where principles of law are misapplied or where no evidential basis exists for imposing liability.

[1] The appeal before us was against the decision of the learned High Court Judge in Johor Bahru Civil Suit No: 22-480-2000 which on 18 September 2013 had affirmed an assessment and award of damages by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR").

[2] After having heard and considered the submission of the respective counsel for the parties, we had allowed the appeal and set aside that award of damages. We now set out our grounds for doing so.

[3] The appellants (in total 291 individuals) were the defendants in the aforementioned suit. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, was at the time of the commencement of the action in 2000, the registered owner of subdivided lots of land originally comprised in Grant 72 for Lot 83, Mukim of Plentong, Johor Bahru (the land).

[4] The parties will be referred to in this grounds as they were at the High Court.

Background

[5] The plaintiff had purchased the land from its previous owner, one Oakfield Enterprises Sdn Bhd, in March 1996. The plaintiff claimed that all the defendants were in wrongful occupation of the land and sought for orders for vacant possession and damages to be entered against the defendants.

[6] The defendants disputed that allegation and maintained that they had valid sale agreements with the previous owner of the land. Some of the defendants had also filed counterclaims against the plaintiff.

[7] After a full trial, the High Court on 28 April 2003, allowed the plaintiff's claim. The High Court also ordered that the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiff which to be assessed by the learned SAR. The counterclaims brought were dismissed.

[8] The defendants pursued with an appeal against that decision but on 13 April 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal (see Rabiah Lip & Ors v. Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals, [2008] 5 MLJ 128 ).

[9] The first hearing of the assessment of damages before the SAR was heard on 30 April 2009 (SAR1). The plaintiff adduced evidence through its first witness.

[10] The next hearing of the assessment was on 8 August 2012 before another SAR (SAR2). The second witness for the plaintiff and the only witness for the defendants gave evidence.

[11] On 27 May 2013, the SAR2 ordered that the defendants to pay damages in the sum of RM63,873,000.00 to the plaintiff. The damages allowed was only part of the plaintiff's total claim in the sum RM110,577.404.71 which was made up of as follows:

(a) Interest payment to bank: RM31,626,754.64

(b) Company expenses: RM15,077,650.07

(c) Loss of use of land calculated @ 5% of the value of land from 1996 to 2008: RM63,873,000.00

[12] The defendants appealed to the judge in chambers against that award of damages made in favour of the plaintiff. No appeal was taken by the plaintiff against that part of its claim that was not allowed.

[13] On 18 September 2013, the learned judge dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the award of damages made by the SAR2.

[14] There were no grounds available in this case for the order of assessment made by the SAR2, save that, as it would be noted, the only damages allowed coincided with the plaintiff's claim for the loss of use of the land for the period from 1996 to 2008. Further, the reasons given by the learned High Court Judge in affirming that award, as recorded, was unfortunately brief; it did not condescend into any discussion of the rival contentions of the parties or an analysis of soundness of the 'measure of damages' applied by the Court in this case. The learned judge merely stated as follows:

"This Court sitting