JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

[Enclosure 164]

Preliminary

[1] As set forth in encl 164, the plaintiff seeks directions concerning the taking of accounts and inquiries under O 43 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012").

[2] Order 43 r 3 of the ROC 2012 provides that:

Directions as to manner of taking account (O 43 r 3)

3. (1) Where the Court orders an account to be taken it may by the same or a subsequent order give directions with regard to the manner in which the account is to be taken or vouched.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Court may direct that in taking the account the relevant books of account shall be evidence of the matters contained therein with liberty to the parties interested to take such objections thereto as they think fit.

(3) Where the Court orders an account to be taken and no provision is made in the order for the manner in which the account is to be taken, the party entitled to the account shall, within one month from the date of the order, apply to the Registrar for directions.

(4) On the hearing of the application for directions under paragraph (3), the Registrar may, in addition to making such orders as are necessary and appropriate, give directions as to the time by which the account referred to in r 4, a notice referred to in r 5 or a notice of appointment for the taking of the account in Form 76A shall be filed.

(5) Notwithstanding O 62 r 10, a notice of appointment for the taking of the account referred to in paragraph (4) shall, not later than seven days after it has been filed, be served on the party making the account.

(6) If the party entitled to the account does not file the application for directions within the period referred to in paragraph (3), any other party may do so or apply for the Court to exercise its powers under r 7.

[3] This application is opposed by the defendant.

An Overview Of The Facts

[4] On 23 October 2024, this Court granted the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim ("Judgment").

[5] The Judgment consists of the following terms, taken verbatim:

(a) a declaration that the defendant was in breach of the Media License Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 1 March 2016 ("MLA");

(b) an 'account' of all the revenue earned by the defendant from the Unauthorised Advertisements and the New Advertising Mediums (both defined in the Statement of Claim) be provided by the defendant within seven (7) days of the Order made herein or within the period this Court otherwise direct;

(c) that RM600,000.00 being the security deposit (as pleaded in the Statement of Claim) be refunded to the plaintiff by the defendant;

(d) that damages be assessed and upon assessment be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff;

(e) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the above sums including the sums as assessed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, be paid by the defendant from the judgment date herein until the date of full settlement;

(f) that the plaintiff be entitled to set off any amounts found due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff against any amounts found due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant pursuant to the MLA;

(g) that the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff is dismissed; and

(h) that the defendant is to pay to the plaintiff costs in the sum of RM30,000.00. subject to allocatur.

[6] To briefly mention the dispute between the parties, it is noteworthy to mention that the dispute arose as a result of the parties' earlier conduct when they entered into the MLA under which the defendant allocated some of its in-store advertising space to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could advertise the products of third parties. In a revenue-sharing arrangement, the plaintiff would share part of its revenue with the defendant.

[7] Following a full trial, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered in its favour. To this end, this Court made the following key find