JUDGMENT

Azizul Azmi Adnan J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd, operates a private higher learning institution known as Lincoln University College. It commenced a suit against the Malaysian Medical Council (the "MMC") and the 2nd Defendant, Professor Dato' Dr Wan Mohamed Bebakar, in connection with the conduct of the evaluation of medical degree programmes undertaken and to be undertaken by the plaintiff.

[2] The plaintiff claimed that, in carrying out its accreditation survey of the medical degree programmes offered by the plaintiff as well as the programmes that the plaintiff proposed to undertake, the defendants:

(a) were negligent;

(b) breached their statutory duty to the plaintiff; and

(c) committed misfeasance in public office.

[3] After a trial of the action, the court found that the plaintiff's case against the defendants had been made out on all three causes of action.

[4] The plaintiff thereafter commenced proceedings to assess the damages payable. The reasons pertaining to the court's decision in those assessment proceedings are set out here.

Material Facts

[5] It will be necessary for the purposes of understanding the context of the assessment proceedings that a brief summary of the material facts be set out here.

[6] Under the Malaysian Qualifications Agency Act 2007, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency acts as one-stop centre for higher education institutions seeking to obtain accreditation to offer diploma or degree programmes. This Act also requires the relevant professional body (such as the MMC in the case of the medical profession) to establish a Joint Technical Committee to undertake the review of an application for accreditation.

[7] In the present case, the Joint Technical Committee appointed a panel to undertake survey visits of the plaintiff's teaching facilities. These survey visits are undertaken to ensure that the college or school is able to meet the stipulated accreditation criteria. The 2nd Defendant, Dr Wan Mohamed Bebakar, chaired two survey visits conducted on 13 and 27 May 2011 (the "first survey panel visit") and on 29-30 April 2013 (the "second survey panel visit").

[8] The court found that the 2nd Defendant had imposed a requirement on the plaintiff that it procured the physical attendance of its proposed lecturers at the survey panel visits. This was a requirement that was unilaterally imposed by the 2nd Defendant and which did not form any part of the requirements under the Guidelines for the Accreditation of Malaysian Undergraduate Medical Education (the "Accreditation Guidelines") issued by the MMC. Nor did this accord with the past practices of the MMC.

[9] The plaintiff went to great expense to procure the attendance of the lecturers. It sought to recover those expenses in these assessment proceedings.

[10] At the material time, the plaintiff intended to offer three medical degree programmes on a twinning basis with three Ukrainian institutions: Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University (MQA/PA 1562), Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University (MQA/PA 1561) and Ternopil State Medical University (MQA/PA 1049). The plaintiff was also conducting a local medical degree programme (MQA/PA 0927). The three offshore programmes received provisional accreditation on 8 February 2012. The plaintiff subsequently applied to conduct two of those three offshore programmes entirely in Malaysia: the Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University (MQA/PA 1562) and Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University (MQA/PA 1561) medical degree programmes. The MMC granted its approval for the conversion of these two offshore programmes.

[11] The 2nd Defendant made a unilateral decision to regard the two converted programmes MQA/PA 1561 and MQA/PA 1562 as having been absorbed into the local medical degree programme MQA/PA 0927. This was significant, because it meant that the overall quota of students would be reduced from that of three programmes to just one.

[12] The plaintiff complai