The court must identify a causal link between an injunction and claimed damages for compensation to be warranted.

[1] On 29 July 2009, the High Court granted an ex parte injunction to the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondent/2nd defendant and four other defendants. That ex parte injunction ordered (i) return by the 5th defendant of the subject in dispute (two containers of veneer), (ii) payment by the 1st to 3rd defendants (shareholders of the 4th defendant company - Rich Efficient Wood Industries Sdn Bhd) of the proceeds of sale of the 4th defendant's goods to the 4th defendant, (iii) disclosure by the 1st to 3rd defendants of the assets of the 1st to 3rd defendants, (iv) cross-examination of the 1st to 3rd defendants on their affidavits, as well as granted a mareva injunction against the 1st to 3rd defendants who were ordered not to leave Sarawak until conclusion of their cross-examination.

[2] On 20 September 2009, the High Court set aside that ex parte injunction and ordered "damages occasioned thereby to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar and to be paid by the (appellants/plaintiffs) to the defendants". The appellants appealed against the order dated 29 September 2009. But that appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 October 2009. The learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) then proceeded to assess the "damages occasioned".

[3] The respondent and other defendants claimed a total loss of RM12,064,667.48. The learned SAR surmised that the quantum of damages to be assessed was "the loss suffered by the defendants in particular by the respondent for the setting up of the factory and/or any other loss due to the said injunction". At the close of the inquiry, the learned SAR ruled that the respondent suffered the following losses that aggregated to RM1,557,882.04:

"From all the evidence tendered I hereby allow the damages as follows:

i. RM896,248.00 for the purchase of furniture, machineries, machine parts, etc. This would be allowed in the sum of RM500,000.00 this is based on the reason that as being testified during the hearing of the assessment of damages itself that only one machine was brought in and the other machine had been planted and existed in the said factory affixed and was provided by the landlord.

ii. Claim of RM420,000.00 for payment of rental deposit and rental to Ong Seng Guan, the owner of the factory land to be deducted in the sum of RM50,000.00 as the plaintiff did contribute to the same at the initial stage of setting up the said factory, so the amount allowed would be RM370,000.00.

iii. RM44,719.00 for air ticket charges and insurance premium for 12 workers from China hereby allowed in total of the whole sum.

iv. RM44,176.00 for freight and customs charges for machineries from China allowed in total sum claimed as the defendant succeeded in showing all the relevant evidence, receipt and vouchers.

v. RM20,000.00 for petty cash expenses allowed in total as this would be a reasonable amount to be claimed as per setting up a business.

vi. RM16,570.00 for factory miscellaneous this would be allowed in total as well.

vii. RM546,302.44 for salaries of workers from China and Bangladesh allowed in the sum of RM300,000.00 as the total was too excessive to be allowed the whole sum as the rest could be covered under other miscellaneous expenses.

viii. RM59,900.00 on hardware accessories and cutter this claim would also be allowed in total as per claimed.

ix. RM102,517.04 on staff quarters renovations as the defendant did manage to prove all the expenses as claimed.

x. RM135,660.00 to buy machineries from Taiwan. This was also allowed in the sum of RM100,000.00 as there were some other machineries that already existed in the said factory and was admitted by parties as well.

The following are hereby dismissed as the 2nd defendant failed to prove to the Court the expenses which accumulated to the following sum..."

[4] The appe