Plaintiffs must substantiate claims for damages, while courts exercise discretion in assessing damages based on proof and applicable legal principles.

[1] Before us there are two appeals, namely, W-01(W)-55-02/2016 ("Appeal 55") and W-01(W)-56-02-2016 ("Appeal 56") emanating from one judgement of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. Both the appeals were heard together as they are based on the same factual matrix and issues.

[2] Appeal 55 is an appeal by the plaintiff against the whole of the learned JC's decision while Appeal 56 is an appeal by the defendants against part of the decision involving the award of exemplary and aggravated damages.

[3] For ease of reference, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

Facts Of The Case

[4] To put the issues in these appeals in proper perspective, a brief narration of the facts of the case is necessary and may be shortly stated as follows:

(a) The plaintiff was a scrap metal trader. Her trading premises were rented from the Kuala Lumpur City Hall Workers Union.

(b) The plaintiff had a valid business registration licence from the Registrar of Business and Exemption Certificate from the Royal Malaysian Police pursuant to the Second Hand Dealers Act 1946 .

(c) However, the plaintiff did not have a licence for premises and approval from the 1st defendant to construct the structure on the land concerned.

(d) On 16 January 2008, the defendants carried out the enforcement action and demolished the structure located on the land concerned and seized certain goods of the plaintiff which assets were never returned to her.

(e) The plaintiff then filed the present suit against the defendants for trespass, conversion and detinue, negligence, breach of statutory duty, conspiracy and misfeasance in public office.

(f) At the trial before the learned Hue Siew Kheng J, the sole issue for determination was whether the defendants in the course of carrying out their enforcement action to demolish illegal structures erected by the plaintiff on the land concerned had or had not acted unlawfully or negligently in committing the acts of trespass, conversion and/or detinue.

(g) The learned Hue Siew Kheng J allowed the plaintiff's claim against the defendants and ordered that the damages be assessed by the Senior Assistance Registrar ("SAR").

(h) The defendants dissatisfied with the fidings of liability and appealed against the said decision to the Court of Appeal vide Civil Appeal No: W-01-463-10-2012. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal and affimed the decision of the learned Hue Siew Kheng, J and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for assessment of damages before the SAR.

(i) On 1 July 2016, the learned SAR assessed the damages as follows:

(j) Being dissatisfied with the SAR's award, the defendants appealed to the High Court.

(k) The High Court (Azizul Azmi Adnan JC presiding) reduced the damages to the following:

(l) Both parties were dissatisfied with the quantum of award. Hence, the appeals before us.

The Appeals

[5] Stripped to its bare essentials, the plaintiff's main criticisms against the award rendered by the learned JC may be summarised as follows:

(a) The learned JC had erred in law and/or in fact in reducing the quantum of award of special damages based on issues of the financial statements which the learned JC himself has admitted were never raised in the assessment of damages proceedings before SAR;

(b) The learned JC had erred in law and/or in fact in reducing the quantum of award of general damages as His Lordship did not find that the SAR had acted upon a wrong principle of law; and

(c) The learned JC had erred in law and/or fact in reducing the quantum award of special damages and general damages and consequently reduced the quantum award of exemplary dam