JUDGMENT

[Claim For Fire Consequential Loss]

Leong Wai Hong J:

Introduction

[1] This is a trial heard over 4 days in 2025. Oral submissions by counsel were held before me on 23 May 2025 and on 6 August 2025. On 8 October 2025 I delivered my decision as follows:

i. I allowed the plaintiff's claim for the sum of RM220,725.00 based on a fire policy. [Enclosure 16 B1 pp 23-43]; and

ii. I dismissed the claim for RM3,919,991.42 for fire consequential loss based on a fire consequential policy. [Enclosure 16 B1 p 48].

[2] An appeal was filed by the plaintiff on 6 November 2025 to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of its claim for RM3,919,991.42 for fire consequential loss. These are my Grounds of Judgment in respect of the claim for fire consequential loss only.

Relevant Facts

[3] A fire occurred on 27 August 2020, causing damage to the furnace area and biogas burner in the water-tube steam-generating boiler at the plaintiff's business premises at Lot 514 & 5,5, Kampung Tiong, 73400 Gemas, Negeri Sembilan.

[4] Due to the fire, Boiler no 2 was not operational from 27 August 2020 to 3 January 2021, a period of 129 days. Only Boiler no 1 was operational.

[5] The plaintiff claims RM3,919,991.42 for fire consequential loss caused by Boiler no 2 being not operational from 27 August 2020 to 3 January 2021, a period of 129 days.

Basis For Plaintiff's Quantum

[6] The plaintiff's director PW6, Tan Choo Soon, in Q&A 27-34 of his Supplementary Witness Statement [WS-PW6-(B)], [encl 61] explained the basis for the plaintiff's claim of RM3,919,991.42 under the Fire Consequential Loss Policy.

[7] PW6 testified the plaintiff used actual audited financial performance for the financial years 2017 to 2020. The methodology is as follows.

[8] Computing the average net profit(loss) before tax for a three-year period and specifically for the corresponding months (of interruption), namely:

i. September 2017 - January 2018;

ii. September 2018 - January 2019; and

iii. September 2019 - January 2020

[9] Comparing the said average net profit against the actual net profit/(loss) recorded during the disruption period from 27 August 2020 to 3 January 2021, when Boiler No 2 was rendered inoperable and only Boiler No 1 was operational.

[10] PW6 concludes his testimony by saying:

34. Q: What is the basis and calculations that led to the derivation of RM3,919,991.42?

A: The basis and calculations underlying the derivation of RM3,919,991.42 involve taking the average profit/(loss) for the period from September 2017 to January 2020 and subtracting the profit/(loss) for the corresponding period 27 August 2020 to 3 January 2021 during the period when the boiler was non-functional.

Defendant's Contention

[11] The defendant contends audit accounts, by themselves, do not show a reduction in turnover/sales caused by the fire. The defendant says there is no evidence of cancellation of orders due to the plaintiff not able to meet the orders due to having only one boiler operational.

Court 's Analysis

Law

[12] It is elementary and trite law that a plaintiff bringing an action for damages bears the burden to prove that he has suffered the damage and prove the quantum of the damages that are claimed. [See Datuk Mohd Ali Hj Abdul Majid & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad; [2014] 4 MLJ 465; [2014] 6 CLJ 269; [2014] 4 AMR 301, FC].

[13] In Datuk Mohd Ali Hj Abdul Majid & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad; [2014] 4 MLJ 465; [2014] 6 CLJ 269; [2014] 4 AMR 301, FC, the Federal Court said:

[31] The object of an award of damages is to give the claimant compensation for the damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The general principle governing the measure of damages has its origin in the words of Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cas 25 where he said:

... that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.

[32] It is trite