JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

[1] These are my full grounds of judgment for the 2nd Tranche of the trial on assessment of damages ('2nd Tranche') following my decision on 14 August 2020 (which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 17 May 2022 and no motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was filed by the Plaintiff) whereby the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs and the reliefs sought by the Defendant by way of its counterclaim were allowed, namely for:

(a) a declaration that the Plaintiff has breached the Agency Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant dated 31 March 2013 ('Agency Agreement');

(b) a declaration that the Plaintiff has committed copyright infringement against the Defendant in relation to the following:

(i) the Defendant's webpage on Phonon Diagnostic Technology ('PDT');

(ii) the Defendant's presentation on PDT; and

(iii) the PDT technical information in the Presentation slides on PDT as set out in exhs P139 and P140;

(collectively 'the Copyrighted Works');

(c) a declaration that the Plaintiff has committed breach of the Defendant's confidential information in relation to the following:

(i) the document that describes the PDT procedure entitled "Precise Procedure of Instrumental Phonon Diagnostic of Pipelines";

(ii) the PDT mathematical formula; and

(iii) the Defendant's PDT software;

(collectively 'the Confidential Information'; the Copyrighted Works and the Confidential Information shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the 'Information and Documents');

(d) a perpetual injunction to restrain the Plaintiff whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, servant, representatives, shareholders, and/or any of them howsoever from infringing the copyright of the Copyrighted Works;

(e) a perpetual injunction to restrain the Plaintiff whether acting itself, its directors, officers, servant, representatives, shareholders, and/or agents and/or any of them howsoever from utilizing, disclosing, breaching, misusing and/or in any way dealing with the Confidential Information;

(f) an order that the Plaintiff, within twenty one (21) days from the date of this judgment, whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, servant, representative, shareholders and/or agents and/or any of them howsoever do forthwith deliver up upon oath and surrender to the Defendant or its solicitors, all Information and Documents or any other documents belonging to the Defendant that was copied, removed, extracted by and/or provided to the Plaintiff and all copies or extracts of or from such Information and Documents in its possession or under its control and to affirm and affidavit stating that the Plaintiff no longer has any possession or control of the Information and Documents;

(g) an inquiry as to damages suffered by the Defendant and/or alternatively, at the Defendant's option an account of profits due from the Plaintiff' act of utilizing and/or disclosing and/or in any way dealing with the Defendant's Information and Documents and/or the Plaintiff's acts of infringement of the Defendant's copyright;

(h) statutory damages pursuant to s 37(1)(d) of the Copyright Act 1987 [Act 332] ('CA 1987') to be determined;

(i) exemplary and/ or aggravated damages to be determined;

(j) pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Counterclaim on 2 May 2017 until the date of full settlement; and

(k) costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the quantum to be determined at the assessment of damages stage.

[2] After having considered the oral and documentary evidence and submissions by the parties, and I was of the view that the Defendant had proven, on a balance of probabilities, its claim for:

(a) damages for breach of contract in the sum of RM14,813,482.00.00. In this regard the Court accepted the opinion given by the Defendant's expert;

(b) account of profits for breach of confidential information in the sum of RM1,979,624.59;

(c) statutory damages in the sum