Suria Kumar Dj Paul J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION

[1]This matter involves an assessment of damages by the Plaintiff against the 1^st Defendant.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[2]This Court gave the judgment on liability after a full trial on 19.4.2021 by my predecessor Awang Armadjaya, JC. His Lordship granted an order for specific performance against the 1^st Defendant to construct sewerage piping on the Plaintiff’s land. The terms of the Judgement are as follows: -

“(a) bahawa Defendan Pertama diperintahkan untuk melaksanakan secara khususnya pembinaan perpaipan pembetungan untuk digunakan dalam pemajuan Tanah-tanah Plaintif yang dipegang di bawah H.S.(D) 47962 PTB 1449, H.S.(D) 47963 PTB 1450, H.S.(D) 47964 PTB 1451, H.S.(D) 47965 PTB 1452, H.S.(D) 47966 PTB 1453, H.S.(D) 47967 PTB 1454, H.S.(D) 47968 PTB 1455, kesemuanya dalam Mukim Sungai Segamat, Daerah Segamat, Johor (“Tanah-tanah Plaintif) agar kedalaman dan kecerunannya adalah mencukupi seperti yang diluluskan oleh pihak berkuasa yang reievan untuk tujuan digunakan di Tanah-tanah Plaintif dan/atau pemajuan Tanah-tanah Plaintif;

(b) jika Defendan Pertama gagal untuk melaksanakan secara khususnya pembinaan perpaipan pembetungan menurut pohonan (a) diatas, Defendan Pertama diperintahkan untuk membayar ganti rugi kepacla Plaintif sebagai penggantian pelaksanaan khusus pembinaan perpaipan pembetungan tersebut menurut pohonan (a) di atas dan untuk pentaksiran ganti rugi tersebut;

(c) faedah pra penghakiman bagi jumlah yang diawardkan sebagai ganti rugi dalam pohonan (b) di atas selaras dengan Seksyen 11Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956dari tarikh Writ Saman hingga tarikh penghakiman pada kadar faedah sebanyak 5% setahun;

(d) faedah pasca penghakiman bagi jumlah yang diawardkan sebagai ganti rugi dalam pohonan (b) di atas selaras dengan Perintah 42 aturan 12 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dari tarikh penghakiman hingga penghasilan penuh pada kadar faedah sebanyak 5% setahun;

(e) pihak-pihak diberi kebenaran untuk memohon perintah konsekuen, jika perlu; dan

(f) kos berjumlah RM50,000.00”

[3]The background facts leading to this Court granting the specific performance Order against the 1^st Defendant can be found in the grounds of judgment for liability reported in Sia Her Yam Realty Sdn. Bhd. v. Strata Century Sdn. Bhd. & Anor .

[4]Subsequently, the Judgement was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal on 21.2.2022.

[5]Thereafter, the 1^st Defendant failed to comply with this Judgement. To put it simply, the 1^st Defendant failed to carry out the construction of the sewerage piping.

[6]According to the 1^st Defendant, they were unable to comply with the judgement due to a deadlock between the parties, purportedly about the validity of the previous approval given by IWK to construct the sewerage piping and who is to obtain the approval.

[7]This prompted the Plaintiff to apply for consequential reliefs to compel the 1^st Defendant to specifically perform construction of the sewerage piping and all matters related to it, or in the alternative, to pay damages to the Plaintiff.

[8]When the Plaintiff’s application came up before this Court on 2.11.2022, the parties agreed to resolve the deadlock by the 1^st Defendant agreeing to pay damages to the Plaintiff in lieu of specific performance, and the Plaintiff would be at liberty to apply for the assessment of damages.

[9]A consent Order was recorded on the following terms: -

“1. Defendan Pertama membayar ganti rugi kepada Plaintif sebagai penggantian pelaksanaan khusus menurut permohonan (b) dalam Penghakiman bertarikh 19 April 2021 di mana ganti rugi tersebut akan ditaksirkan di hadapan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana;

2. Plaintif diberi kebebasan untuk memohon taksiran ganti rugi yang didengar di hadapan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman yang bijaksana.”

[10]Thereafter, the assessment of damages was proceeded with by the Plaintiff before me.

[11]Briefly, Plaintiff sought two (2) heads of damages. They are: -

(a)The cost for construction of the sewerage pipes;

(b)The loss of profit/re