JUDGMENT

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

(Assessment Of Damages)

Introduction

[1] This is the assessment of damages following a finding by the Federal Court of a breach of statutory duty by the Malaysian Bar. The breach arose under s 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA").

[2] In its judgment, the Federal Court held that the Malaysian Bar had committed a breach of statutory duty. The breach occurred when the Malaysian Bar published a motion entitled "Motion Against Shafee Abdullah" on its official website and subsequently tabled the said motion for deliberation and resolution at the Annual General Meeting ("AGM"). The Federal Court found that such action contravened the requirements of s 99(1) of the LPA. Under that provision, the Malaysian Bar was obliged to refer the matter directly to the Disciplinary Board rather than raising it through a public forum such as the AGM.

[3] The plaintiff, Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, claims damages in light of the said breach. He seeks a global sum of RM2 million. This sum is claimed under the heads of general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary or punitive damages.

[4] The general damages claimed encompass several aspects. These include reputational harm, injury to feelings, loss of professional opportunities, loss of earnings and deterioration of mental health due to stress. The plaintiff further claims that the conduct of the Malaysian Bar warrants aggravated and punitive damages in view of its alleged recklessness and disregard for his rights.

[5] The 3rd defendant, namely the Malaysian Bar, refutes the plaintiff's entitlement to damages. In defence, it advances several grounds. Among the primary grounds is a claim of statutory immunity under s 111 of the LPA. The Malaysian Bar also submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish a causal link between the breach and the loss allegedly suffered. It contends that the plaintiff has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove any actual damage or injury flowing directly from the breach of statutory duty.

[6] The principal issue before this Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages pursuant to the breach of statutory duty as previously found by the Federal Court . Should the answer to that question be in the affirmative, this Court must further determine the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded.

Brief Background Of Facts

[7] The present dispute arises from a motion titled "Motion Against Shafee Abdullah" dated 28 February 2015. The motion was proposed by the 1st defendant, Tommy Thomas, and seconded by the 2nd defendant, Tan Sri Vadaketh Chacko George. The motion sought three specific outcomes. First, it sought to condemn the plaintiff in the strongest terms for his behaviour since 10 February 2015. Second, it urged the incoming Bar Council to lodge a complaint against the plaintiff with the Disciplinary Board. Third, it called upon the Bar Council to take appropriate steps to prevent the plaintiff from bringing the legal profession into disrepute.

[8] The motion stemmed from the plaintiff's conduct in his role as ad hoc Deputy Public Prosecutor in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Anwar Ibrahim. The motion also referred to certain public comments made by the plaintiff following the Federal Court 's decision in that case.

[9] On 9 March 2015, the Bar Council circulated the said motion to its members. This was done in advance of the 69th AGM scheduled to be held on 14 March 2015. A day before the AGM, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit and successfully obtained an ex parte injunction. The injunction restrained the Malaysian Bar from tabling or discussing the motion at the forthcoming AGM.

[10] Subsequently, on 26 June 2015, the Bar Council lodged a formal complaint with the Disciplinary Board against the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's evidence adduced before this Court , the disciplinary proceedings arising from that complaint remain ongoing.

[11] At the High Court , the plaintiff pu