Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2894
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SPEKTRA SEGMEN SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TC AUTOWORLD SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: B-03(IM)-81-10/2021 & B-03(IM)-82-10/2021]
A causal link must exist between an injunction and claimed damages, with damages needing to be substantiated by concrete evidence rather than estimates.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Injunctions - Damages - Appeal against the High Court's decision on damages awarded for unlawful encroachment - The High Court reduced the awarded damages from RM4,072,603.63 to RM403,200.00, finding insufficient evidence for the claimed costs - The appeal addressed the legality of the Mandatory Injunction and the assessment of damages related to encroachment. (Paras 1, 20, 90)
(B) Encroachment - The legal principle established that a causal link must exist between the injunction and the damages claimed - The court emphasized that damages must be proven with adequate evidence and not merely estimated figures. (Paras 23, 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose after Spektra, the owner of Lot 330, alleged that TC Auto's structures encroached onto its land. A Mandatory Injunction was granted, requiring TC Auto to demolish the encroaching structures. TC Auto claimed damages for the costs incurred due to compliance with the injunction. (Paras 10-12, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the damages claimed by TC Auto were not adequately substantiated, resulting in the reduction of the awarded sum. The court ruled that the 3-meter setback requirement was not proven, affecting the causal relationship between the injunction and claimed damages. (Paras 31, 90)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Mandatory Injunction, the assessment of damages for the alleged encroachment, and whether the 3-meter setback requirement was proven. (Paras 22, 90)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of evidence linking the claimed damages to the injunction justified the reduction in the awarded sum, emphasizing the importance of proving damages with concrete evidence rather than estimates. (Paras 32, 34)
Result: The appeal by Spektra was dismissed, while TC Auto's appeal was allowed, and the Deputy Registrar's decision was reinstated. (Paras 100)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals by spektra and tc auto. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts regarding land ownership and structures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. details of the encroachment dispute and court orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. importance of the mandatory injunction in damage assessment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. spektra's arguments regarding non-compliance with orders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. court's evaluation of causal link and damages. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. expert testimony on setback requirements. (Para 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. judicial notice of local council guidelines. (Para 44 , 45 , 47) |
| 9. impact of compliance with setback on structural integrity. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. tc auto's claim for damages due to mandatory injunction. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 11. methodology for calculating damages. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 12. reliability of expert reports in damage assessment. (Para 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 13. critique of opposing expert report. (Para 69 , 70 , 75) |
| 14. deputy registrar's findings on structural integrity. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 15. assessment of loss and reconfiguration due to injunction. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 16. errors in high court's judgment. (Para 86 , 89 , 90) |
| 17. clarification of tc auto's claims and settlement argument. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94) |
| 18. final decision and costs awarded. (Para 99 , 100) |
(A) Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by Spektra Segmen Sdn Bhd ("Spektra") in Civil Appeal No B-03(IM)-8110/2021 and by TC Autoworld Sdn Bhd ("TC Auto") in Civil Appeal No B-03(IM)-82-10/2021 respectively against the decision of the High Court dated 20 September 2021.
[2] Spektra's appeal is against the award of RM403,200.00 in damages while TC Auto's appeal is against the dismissal and setting aside of their claim for RM4,072,603.63 previously awarded by the Deputy Registrar in their favour.
(B) Background Facts
[3] Spectra and TC Auto were adjacent landowners whose lands were located between Jalan 223/51A in the Northwest and the Federal Highway in the Southeast of Petaling Jaya.
[4] Spektra's land is identified as Lot 330, Pajakan Negeri 4483, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (hereinafter referred to as 'Lot 330').
[5] TC Auto's land is identified as No 4483, Lot 331 s 14 Mukim Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling Jaya (hereinafter referred to Lot 33T).
[6] Both Lot 330 and 331 were originally owned by a common landowner upon alienation, with several ownership changes until it was bought over by the Plaintiff and the Defendant through separate purchases.
[7] In 1964 the common landowner of Lots 330 and 331 built a factory on Lot 331 with a wall built along the common boundary separating both lots.
[8] In 1969, an extension to the existing factory on Lot 331 was built. The extension was built on Lot 330 in the form of a semi-detached building adjoining the existing factory on Lot 331.
[9] The original wall for the factory on Lot 331 then became a party wall, which sat on the common boundary of the two lots. The party wall shared the same foundations and columns in order to support both the factory on Lot 331 and the extension on Lot 330.
[10] The dispute between the parties arose after the Plaintiff purchased Lot 330, when it appointed a consultant engineer and a land surveyor to conduct a survey and advise on the proposed development of a six-storey office block with two underground floors for car parks.
[11] The survey conducted led to the Plaintiff alleging that the Defendant's building had encroached into the Plaintiffs land and demanding that the Defendant demolish the alleged encroachments by a certain date. The Defendant denied the encroachment.
[12] As a result of this sequence of events, by way of an action dated 23 November 2006, Spektra filed a claim against TC Auto for unlawful encroachment and obtained a Mandatory Injunction dated 15 October 2009 against TC Auto in
