JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] This decision pertains to encl 93, which is a Notice of Assessment filed pursuant to O 37 of the Rules of 2012. It arises from an Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 May 2024, by which the Court remitted the matter to this Court for the assessment of damages following the appeal in Suit No. BA-22NCvC-14-01/2022 ("Suit 14").

[2] The appeal was brought against a decision of the High Court at Shah Alam (before a different Court and judge), which had dismissed the plaintiff's claim against both the 1st and 2nd Defendants, with costs. The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, set aside the High Court 's decision, and directed that the matter be remitted to this Court solely for the purpose of assessing damages.

[3] Significantly, the Court of Appeal found the 1st Defendant liable to the plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence, and awarded costs of RM50,000.00, with damages to be assessed by this Court .

[4] The 2nd defendant was found liable in negligence only. The Court awarded costs of RM30,000.00 against the 2nd defendant, and likewise directed that damages be assessed.

The Pertinent Issues For Determination

[5] The mandate of this Court is now confined exclusively to the assessment and determination of the quantum of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled, arising from the findings of liability made by the Court of Appeal against the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Salient Background Facts

[6] The 1st defendant was a partner of the plaintiff and operated a branch of Messrs Su Sidek Hafizatulazna & Co ("SSHC") located in Ampang, Kuala Lumpur ("Ampang Branch of SSHC").

[7] The plaintiff, in turn, operated a separate branch of SSHC in Kajang, Selangor ("Kajang Branch of SSHC").

[8] Both the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant managed their respective branches independently and separately from one another.

[9] In Suit No. BA-22NCvC-234-07/2020 ("Suit 234"), the 3rd defendant successfully obtained a judgment in the sum of RM2,476,085.61 against SSHC. The 3rd defendant, as vendor in a property sale transaction, had sued SSHC for the balance purchase price owed to her.

[10] The 2nd defendant had acted as solicitor for SSHC in that suit.

[11] Following this, the plaintiff initiated the present Suit No. BA-22NCvC-14-01/2022 ("Suit 14") against all three defendants. In Suit 14, the plaintiff sought to nullify and recover the judgment sum of RM2,476,085.61 obtained against SSHC in Suit 234.

[12] The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had committed fraud, engaged in a conspiracy, and were negligent in the conduct of Suit 234.

[13] For clarity, the 3rd defendant succeeded in having the plaintiff's claim against her struck out. As such, she is not involved in the present assessment of damages.

Quantum Of Damages Against The 1st Defendant

[14] As previously noted, the Court of Appeal, by its decision dated 10 May 2024, found the 1st defendant liable to the plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence.

[15] In these assessment proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to recover from the 1st defendant the following:

• The judgment sum (together with interest) and costs awarded to the 3rd defendant in Suit 234;

• Interest at the rate of 5% per annum; and

• Costs incurred in these assessment proceedings.

[16] In addition, the plaintiff also seeks an award of exemplary and general damages. In support of this claim, the plaintiff relied on the case of Sambaga Valli KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors And Another Appeal; [2018] 1 MLJ 784; [2018] 4 AMR 745.

[17] To substantiate the claims, the plaintiff has tendered a witness statement via encl 108. The statement outlines, among other matters, the reputational damage suffered by the plaintiff's firm, expenses incurred in establishing a new legal practice, and the mental anguish endured by the plaintiff as a result of the 1st defendant's misconduct.

[18] It is to be noted that the 1st defendant has neither