SAMBAGA VALLI KR PONNUSAMY vs DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 3036

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SAMBAGA VALLI KR PONNUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Zamani Ibrahim,Hanif Idris,Amran Aminuddin ,Respondent Advocate: Wong Huk Mun,Tan Ru En

Table of Content
1. introduction of appeals and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts surrounding the plaintiff's claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 6)
4. court's observations on legal principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. ratio decidendi regarding damages. (Para 9)

[1] Before us there are two appeals, namely, W-01(W)-55-02/2016 ("Appeal 55") and W-01(W)-56-02-2016 ("Appeal 56") emanating from one judgement of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. Both the appeals were heard together as they are based on the same factual matrix and issues.

[2] Appeal 55 is an appeal by the plaintiff against the whole of the learned JC's decision while Appeal 56 is an appeal by the defendants against part of the decision involving the award of exemplary and aggravated damages.

[3] For ease of reference, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

Facts Of The Case

[4] To put the issues in these appeals in proper perspective, a brief narration of the facts of the case is necessary and may be shortly stated as follows:

(a) The plaintiff was a scrap metal trader. Her trading premises were rented f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 3036

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASAMBAGA VALLI KR PONNUSAMY – AppellantVersusDATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SAMBAGA VALLI KR PONNUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent