JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo J:

(Assessment Of Damages)

Introduction

[1] Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal had on 5 January 2022 in Civil Appeal No W-02(IM)(NCvC)-2082-11/2019 struck out the action brought by the plaintiff.

[2] The Court of Appeal had further set aside the High Court Orders for injunction obtained by the plaintiff from the previous judge against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants at the High Court on 19 April 2019, 2 May 2019, 8 May 2019, 29 May 2019, 9 July 2019, 18 July 2019, 22 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 ("Orders for Injunction") with liberty to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants to apply for an assessment of damages suffered as a result of the Orders for Injunctions pursuant to the undertakings given by the plaintiff to abide by any order the Court or a judge may make as to damages in case the Court or a judge shall hereafter be of the opinion that the defendants shall have sustained.

[3] On 18 January 2023 the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's two notices of motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal Order of 5 January 2022.

[4] By way of Notice of Application dated 20 February 2023 (Encl 163) the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants applied for assessment of damages. The trial for this assessment was scheduled for 7 July 2025 and 13 August 2025. On 7 July 2025, by consent, the parties agreed that the examination of witnesses be dispensed with, and the matter be dealt with by way of affidavits and written submissions.

[5] For the assessment of damages, a total of 53 documents including three affidavits by and on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants and one by the plaintiff were filed. This was followed by written submissions which were filed in accordance with the Court 's directions given on 7 July 2025 (Encl 313 Primary Submissions by the defendants with BOA in Encl 314 and Submissions in Reply in Encl 317 with BOA2 in Encl 318; Encl 315 Submissions by the plaintiff with BOA in Encl 316). This was followed by the plaintiff filing further skeletal submissions (Encl 322 with BOA2 in Encl 323) and the defendants filing a Reply Summary of Submissions (Encl 326). Unless expressly stated otherwise, the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants shall be referred to collectively as the defendants.

[6] Having read all the submissions filed, these are the grounds of judgment in short form for the decision which is pronounced herein. This is because thanks to the ability and skill of learned counsel for both the defendants and the plaintiff, their comprehensive written submissions have addressed the crux of the dispute and each other's assertions in a concise, clear and coherent manner. In my considered view, to repeat what they have submitted would unnecessarily lead to a lengthy judgment, save to say, that these grounds are to be read together with their submissions.

Background In Brief

[7] To give context to the grounds in short form, I set out the background in brief.

[8] On 4 April 2018, the 1st Defendant acting through its Receiver & Manager ("R & M") entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") for the sale of the 1st Defendant's assets to the plaintiff for RM1.2 billion with conditions precedent.

[9] Six extensions of time were granted by the 1st Defendant to the plaintiff to meet the conditions precedent, chief of which was to obtain the approval of the Sabah State Government for the sale including the issuance of fresh Timber Licenses to the plaintiff.

[10] On 30 April 2019, the Sabah State Government stated that its decision not to issue fresh Timber Licences to the plaintiff is final. This resulted in the 1st Defendant taking the position that the SPA had automatically been terminated due to the non-fulfilment of the conditions precedent within the extended completion period.

[11] The R & M of the 1st Defendant proceeded with a fresh tender exercise to sell the 1st Defendant's assets. An advertisement was published in the South China Morning Post on 6 April 2019. Advertisements were also published in the