The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish causation and damages in breach of contract claims.

[1] The present appeal relates to a claim that was initiated by the appellant. The appellant sought to recover his outstanding salary and allowance totaling RM7,400.00 from the respondent, his employer, in the Magistrates' Court at Klang. The respondent is in the business of manufacturing and selling, specifically printed lamination paper. By a letter dated 1 October 2010, the appellant had informed the respondent that he intended to resign with effect March 2011. However, by a letter dated 21 January 2011, the respondent terminated the appellant's employment.

[2] In its defence and counterclaim, the respondent counterclaimed for, inter alia, a sum of RM1 million representing the respondent's loss suffered as a result of the appellant's wrongful act of disclosing and misusing the respondent's business information and confidential and intellectual property information. Because of the quantum of damages claimed, the suit was transferred to the High Court at Shah Alam.

[3] At the High Court, the appellant's action was, however, struck out due to his repeated non-attendance. Interlocutory judgment was entered for the respondent's counterclaim and damages were ordered to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR").

[4] The learned SAR conducted the assessment based on affidavits filed by both parties. There was no cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits. The learned SAR assessed a sum of RM1 million as representing the respondent's loss of profit and, issued a certificate to that effect. According to the learned SAR, he had taken the evidence of the respondent's losses as shown in the exhibits in arriving at that sum. The significant losses shown in exhs WPC-6, WPC-7 and WPC-8 are clearly due to the appellant's use of the respondent's confidential information and "trade secrets", that the appellant had disclosed confidential information on the respondent's customers to Siam Paper Decor.

[5] On appeal, this award was affirmed by the learned High Court Judge. The learned judge found that the sole issue was whether the respondent had proved damages amounting to RM1 million since the issue of liability had already been decided by the judgment in default entered earlier when the appellant failed to attend Court. Her Ladyship found that there were no merits in the appeal, that the learned SAR was "correct and justified in making the decision" and that the appellant had failed to adduce and rebut the documentary evidence in relation to the respondent's losses. The appellant's affidavit contained only "bare denials". Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to the respondent.

[6] After hearing the oral submissions of the learned counsel and having considered the written submissions and record of appeal, we were unanimous in allowing the appeal. We agreed with the submissions of the appellant's counsel that the respondent had failed to prove the losses suffered and had further failed to prove that the losses suffered were indeed attributable to the acts of the appellant. The element of causation was still relevant in relation to the assessment of damage, that the respondent had to prove that the particular damage or loss cl