Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
M3 TECHNOLOGIES (ASIA) BERHAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
VOON SZE LIN & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of damages post-apo discharge (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. causation and its proof requirements (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. undertaking as to damages and historical context (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. balancing plaintiff's interests and defendant's rights (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. direct causation linked to failed apo (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. claims for special damages must be substantiated (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. general damages assessment considerations (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. considerations for aggravated damages (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. exemplary damages cannot be awarded in this context (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
Introduction
[1] This judgment concerns Encl 377, which is the assessment of damages payable to the second defendant ("D2") pursuant to the plaintiffs' cross-undertaking as to damages. This obligation arose after the discharge of an Anton Piller Order ("APO") obtained against D2. Initially granted ex-parte by this Court to preserve evidence linked to allegations of intellectual property infringement and breach of trust, the APO was later unseated by the Court of Appeal, which decreed that the order should neve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
