Damages in a fraud case must be proven with real, substantial evidence, and courts retain discretion to adjust awards based on actual loss as substantiated by plaintiffs.

Assessment Of Damages After Full Trial

(Enclosure 418)

Introduction

[1] In a suit grounded on fraudulent misrepresentation, after trial, the learned trial judge ("LTJ") on 14 June 2024 granted judgment (Encl 346) as prayed in the Statement of Claim of the plaintiffs and dismissed the Counterclaim of the 1st Defendant against the plaintiffs.

[2] Following therefrom the plaintiffs gave notice (Encl 418) dated 26 February 2025 for the damages awarded to them to be assessed.

[3] During a case management held on 21 March 2025, both the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to have the assessment of damages carried out by way of evidence led in the form of an exchange of affidavits, bundle of pleadings (Encl 384), the bundle of documents entitled Ikatan Dokumen Tambahan P (Encl 422) comprising witness statements of the parties tendered during the trial on liability, the plaintiffs' executive summary in support of trial submissions (Encl 331), to be followed by written submissions.

[4] The plaintiffs filed two affidavits, one by Justin Chee Ting Hwang, a registered valuer practicing under Knight Frank Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Encl 423) and a joint affidavit by the plaintiffs (Encl 424).

[5] The 1st Defendant affirmed one affidavit (Encl 421) and both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants caused to be filed one affidavit affirmed by the 2nd Defendant (Encl 420).

[6] Thereafter, written submissions were filed by the plaintiffs in encls 427 and 433, by the 1st Defendant in encl 425 and bundle of authorities ("BOA") in encl 426 and encl 431 and BOA in encl 432 and by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in encl 429.

Decision

[7] At the end of the assessment, the court handed down judgment on damages as follows:

(i) the interest at 5% pa for special damages awarded by the LTJ is to accrue from the date of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim (11 July 2018) until full realisation;

(ii) the defendants are to jointly and severally pay aggravated damages in the sum of RM100,000.00 to the plaintiffs with interest thereon at 5% pa from the date of the filing of the Writ (11 July 2018) until full realisation; and

(iii) costs of a total sum of RM30,000.00 to be paid to the plaintiffs, with the 1st Defendant to pay RM15,000.00 and 2nd and 3rd Defendants to pay RM15,000.00, both of which are subject to allocatur and to be paid within 14 days from the date of this Order (28 May 2025).

[8] Both the plaintiffs and all the three defendants have appealed against the judgment on damages and these are the grounds of judgment for the judgment on damages. The notices of appeal are in Encl 439 (plaintiffs' appeal), Encl 440 (1st Defendant's appeal) and Encl 441 (2nd and 3rd Defendants' appeal).

court's Analysis And Findings Leading To The Judgment

[9] General damages is compensatory in nature (see Tekun Nasional v. Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal 2021 MarsdenLR 1236 ; ; [2021] 10 CLJ 206 (FC) at para [66] and Golden Star & Ors v. Ling Peek Hoe & Anor & Another Appeal 2024 MarsdenLR 740 ; ; ; [2024] 4 AMR 477 (FC) at para [33]).

[10] Under the arrangement, which led to the judgment on liability, the plaintiffs were to get half share each of the Puncak Alam Land ("PA Land") and the Mont' Kiara Land ("MK Land").

[11] For the PA Land, the plaintiffs paid RM30,804,105.00 for what was to be 50% of the purchase price of the PA Land. However, the actual purchase price of the PA Land was only RM25,000,000.00 plus stamp duty of RM744,000.00. 50% of the actual purchase price payable should have been RM12,500,000.00 and if 50% of the stamp duty is added, the amount payable for stamp duty should have been RM372,000.00 (totalling