Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4524
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
WANA GOLD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
QALAM GOLD JEWELLERY (M) SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-914-12/2023]
The court reaffirmed that liability must be based on fault, not emotional responses, and awarded exemplary damages due to intimidation in enforcing unjust claims.
Headnote:(A) Contracts - Misrepresentation - Tort of conversion - The court ruled that the plaintiffs, who merely advanced gold to the defendants, were not parties to the Gold Sale Purchase Agreement, and the defendants wrongly converted both the gold and the exemplary damages of RM250,000 were awarded for the defendants' intimidation tactics at the plaintiffs' business premises. (Paras 28, 41, 74)
(B) Liability - Grounds for claims - Liability must arise from fault or responsibility, not emotional misdirection, reaffirming fair processes are essential for justice. (Paras 1, 2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs alleged they were wrongfully deprived of their gold by the defendants, who used intimidation to enforce false obligations. The court found defendants liable for conversion and intimidation. (Paras 21, 60-74)
Findings of Court:
The defendants failed to prove that plaintiffs were part of the agreement or complied with proper legal processes, resulting in wrongful deprivation of plaintiffs’ gold. (Paras 40, 54)
Issues: Whether plaintiffs were parties to the Gold SPA, whether the defendants converted plaintiffs' gold, and whether exemplary damages were warranted. (Paras 28, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that self-help is impermissible, and while obligations under contracts exist, they must be enforced through proper legal channels without resorting to intimidation. (Paras 71-73)
Result: Defendants ordered to pay market value of gold and exemplary damages. (Paras 75)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. liability based on fault, not emotion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. allegations of threats and demands. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. plaintiffs' claims against defendants. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. key issues for court determination. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 6. plaintiffs' roles in the gold spa. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. court's findings on gold spa involvement. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. defendants' obligation about gold advance. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. surrender of gold and its implications. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 10. defendants' conduct during gold retrieval. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 11. legal basis for exemplary damages. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. justification and need for exemplary damages. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 13. court's final decision on the matter. (Para 74) |
| 14. court’s judgment and orders. (Para 75) |
Introduction
[1] This judgment deals with a tragic but all too human tale where a party, having suffered a genuine wrong, chose to vent their grievance not against the true perpetrator but against an innocent party caught in the crossfire. The facts reveal a misdirection of blame, motivated perhaps by convenience or perhaps by frustration or perhaps by a misapprehension of the law. This has resulted in unwarranted harm to one who bore no responsibility for the original wrong.
[2] The Court is thus called upon not only to untangle the legal claims brought before it but also to reaffirm a fundamental principle of justice, namely, that liability must be grounded in fault or responsibility, not emotion or misplaced retribution or self-help. Where wrong has been done, redress must follow but it must be sought from the right quarter and in accordance with the law.
Background
[3] The 2nd plaintiff, Fathin Syazwani bt Mohamad Zakri ("Fathin") is the sole proprietor of the 1st plaintiff, ("Wana Gold"), trading in gold jewelleries and accessories at a shop unit at B2-21-3, Space U8 mall, Persiaran Pasak Bumi, Bukit Jelutong, Shah Alam, Selangor ("Wana Gold Premises").
[4] The 3rd defendant, Dato' Mohd Rozi bin Ibrahim (DW 4) ("Dato' Rozi") is the sole proprietor of the 2nd defendant, Qalam Gold Jewellery ("Qalam Gold"). The 1st defendant, Qalam Gold Jewellery (M) SDn Bhd ("Qalam Gold SB") is a company wholly owned by Dato' Rozi.
[5] Sometime in early January 2023, the Defendants had intended to purchase a large amount of gold for the opening of their gold shop. Towards this end, a meeting was held sometime on 10 January 2023 where Fathin (PW1) and her husband, Muhammad Amirul Syafiq bin Mohammad Tajudin (PW2) ("Amirul") both representing Wana Gold attended together with one Safiah bt Khalid (DW1), Raja Mohd Norak bin Raja Kadir ("Raja") and Dato' Rozi representing the defendants. They were later joined by Ahmad Rashdan bin Ahmad Kamal (PW3) ("Rashdan") who represented one Zuhal Distributor Enterprise ("Zuhal Distributor") and Harry Goldsmith ("the 10 January 2023 Meeting"). It is not disputed that Zuhal Distributor and Harry Goldsmith were owned by one Dato' Suhairi bin Nordin ("Dato' Suhairi").
[6] Arising from the 10 January 2023 Meeting, an agreement was reached between the defendants and Zuhal Distributor where the defendants agreed to purchase 5 kilograms of gold at the price of RM1,235,000.00 ("the Gold SPA").
[7] There is however a dispute as to whether the plaintiffs were involved in the Gold SPA. The plaintiffs contended that they had merely introduced Rashdan of Zuhal Distributor to the defendants as the defendants were not prepared to purchase the 5 kilograms gold from the plaintiffs at the prevailing market price. The defendants however contended that the plaintiffs were parties to the Gold SPA and accordingly obliged to perform the same together with Zuhal Distributor.
[8] Pursuant to the Gold SPA, it is not disputed tha
