Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Award of Exemplary Damages in Professional Negligence Cases: Courts have awarded exemplary damages in cases involving gross professional negligence, often emphasizing egregious misconduct, vindictiveness, or malice by the defendant. For example, in Wong Sin Chong & Anor & Another Appeal ["
SURESH SUBRAMANIAM vs MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG - Court Of Appeal
"], the court awarded RM50,000 as exemplary damages alongside general damages of RM6.3 million, citing negligence of solicitors. Similarly, in Lewis ["SUZILAWATI SIDEK vs HAFIZATULAZNA MOHD UNIT & ORS - High Court
"], exemplary damages are described as should properly be a fraction rather than a multiple of the amount awarded by way of compensatory damages, indicating proportionality considerations.Proportionality and Discretion: Courts stress that exemplary damages are discretionary and should be proportional to the misconduct. In Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd ["
YUSOF MAN & SATU LAGI LWN. JAMLI ABD AZIZ & SATU LAGI - 2013 MarsdenLR 1396
"], the court awarded RM900,000 as exemplary damages, approximately 25% of the assessed compensatory damages, following guidance from Sin Heap Lee-Marubeni Sdn Bhd v. ... ["NITIN SHARMA RAM KRISHEN vs KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"]. The court also highlighted that exemplary damages are awarded to punish and deter egregious conduct, not merely to compensate.Criteria for Awarding Exemplary Damages: Exemplary damages are typically awarded where the defendant's conduct involves vindictiveness, malice, or a contumelious disregard for the plaintiff's rights. For instance, Sambaga Valli ["
BAHARUL AZMAN OMAR & ORS vs ZULHASMI ZAKARIA & ANOR - High Court
"] described exemplary damages as additional damages awarded where the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice. The court in South West Water Services Ltd [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2010_19_MLRH_23) restricted exemplary damages to specific categories, such as oppressive or malicious acts, indicating their exceptional nature.Limitations and Lack of Statutory Provision: Several cases, such as [" KARTIK PUROSOTHMEN vs MOHAMAD FERDAUS MOHAMAD ASRI & ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2190 TAN SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH vs TOMMY THOMAS & ORS - High Court
Examples of Quantified Exemplary Damages:
SURESH SUBRAMANIAM vs MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG - Court Of Appeal
"]: RM50,000 exemplary damages.MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG vs SURESH SUBRAMANIAM - Federal Court
"]: RM50,000 exemplary damages awarded for negligence, alongside general damages of RM6.3 million.ADAM HAMIL vs DR CHIAM TEE KIANG - High Court
"]: RM100,000 exemplary damages awarded in a negligence case, with total damages amounting to RM341,770.References:- ["
SUZILAWATI SIDEK vs HAFIZATULAZNA MOHD UNIT & ORS - High Court
"]- ["ZUASNITA BAHARUDIN & ANOR vs GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court
"]- ["YUSOF MAN & SATU LAGI LWN. JAMLI ABD AZIZ & SATU LAGI - 2013 MarsdenLR 1396
"]- ["BAHARUL AZMAN OMAR & ORS vs ZULHASMI ZAKARIA & ANOR - High Court
"]- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2010_19_MLRH_23)- ["KARTIK PUROSOTHMEN vs MOHAMAD FERDAUS MOHAMAD ASRI & ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2190
"]- ["MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG vs SURESH SUBRAMANIAM - Federal Court
"]- ["ADAM HAMIL vs DR CHIAM TEE KIANG - High Court
"]- ["SURESH SUBRAMANIAM vs MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SELAYANG - Court Of Appeal
"]
In the realm of , serve a unique purpose: to punish defendants for particularly egregious conduct and deter similar behavior in the future. But can they be awarded for ? This is a common question for plaintiffs, lawyers, and professionals alike: Find cases where court awarded exemplary damages for .
Generally, courts are reluctant to grant exemplary damages in negligence cases. Mere negligence, even if serious, typically does not suffice. Instead, the defendant's conduct must be
. This article delves into the legal principles, key cases where such awards were made, instances where they were denied, and insights from related fields like medical negligence and consumer protection. Note: This is general information, not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
Exemplary damages are , aimed at punishing and deterring misconduct rather than compensating loss
. As stated in one ruling: Vindictive and exemplary damages are awarded only in exceptional circumstances where the defendants' behaviour demonstrates deliberate or egregious wrongdoing, aimed at punishing and deterring such misconduct
.
The threshold is high: ordinary negligence falls short. Courts emphasize that negligence alone, without evidence of intentional or reckless disregard, does not justify exemplary damages
. This principle holds especially in professional contexts like medicine or public service, where even grave errors rarely trigger punitive awards unless malice is proven.
While rare in pure , awards occur when conduct crosses into arbitrary, , or unconstitutional territory, often involving public officials abusing power:
In a notable case against a Minister, the court awarded Rs. 60 lakhs as exemplary damages for wholly arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional allotments of public property: Action of allotment of shops by Smt. Shiela Kaul... being wholly arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional, she is liable to pay Rs. 60 lacs as exemplary damages to the 1996 8 Supreme 97.
Similarly, Rs. 50 lakhs were imposed on Capt. Satish Sharma for parallel arbitrary actions: The actions were wholly arbitrary, and unconstitutional... Capt. Satish Sharma is liable to pay exemplary damages 1996 7 Supreme 747.
These cases illustrate that by public figures, when laced with malice or abuse of power, can lead to exemplary awards
.
In consumer protection scenarios akin to by public authorities, courts have mandated exemplary damages for harassment. For instance, in a case of delayed electricity bills and defective meters despite repeated requests, the court enhanced compensation to Rs. 50,000, stating: For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded 2005 0 Supreme(UK) 520, citing Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243.
Similar rulings in vehicle registration delays highlight by officials as warranting punitive measures: compensation was upped to Rs. 50,000 for mental agony caused by public functionaries 2005 0 Supreme(UK) 499
Harmit singh VS union of india
.Contrastingly, most claims fail to secure exemplary damages:
In medical negligence leading to a child's death, the court refused exemplary awards, substituting with : Exemplary damages are discretionary and typically awarded only in cases of egregious misconduct
. Liability was admitted, but conduct did not meet the threshold
.
Another medical case involving botched surgery upheld general damages but denied exemplary ones due to lack of evidence for egregiousness
.
Public service negligence without malice also falls short: negligence alone... does not justify exemplary damages
.
These examples underscore the high bar: even reckless conduct must prove oppressive or malicious intent.
While not pure negligence, defamation cases provide context. Courts awarded RM20,000 in exemplary damages against a defendant for irresponsible social media statements harming a dentist's reputation, to punish a defendant for the wilful commission of a tort
. However, were denied absent exceptional conduct.
This mirrors negligence trends: exemplary for punishment, aggravated for added suffering due to recklessness.
.
The trend? Courts reserve exemplary damages for conduct beyond negligence, emphasizing deterrence in abuse-of-power scenarios
.
When pursuing claims, highlight any outrageous elements early. Courts exercise discretion, guided by precedents like those above.
In summary, exemplary damages for are exceptional, typically limited to malicious public misconduct. Ordinary negligence prompts compensatory awards instead. Stay informed on evolving case law, and always seek professional legal counsel.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#ExemplaryDamages, #ProfessionalNegligence, #CourtCases
Nanopac (M) Sdn Bhd, this Court remarked as follows: [43]... in cases where an award of exemplary damages is called for, "there should be some semblance of proportionality between the quantum of damages and aggravated damages awarded" (Koh Sin Chong Freddie v. ... [22] Guided by the above principles, the plaintiff is awarded exemplary damages of RM400,000.00. ... Lewis, exemplary dama....
[36] However, exemplary damages are discretionary and typically awarded only in cases of egregious misconduct. While the Court does not find sufficient evidence of oppressive behaviour, it acknowledges the gross negligence of the defendants. ... [39] Furthermore, awarding vindicatory or exemplary damages in medical negligence cases without clear evidence of bad faith or oppressive conduct woul....
[2015] 8 CLJ 248 ; [2015] 6 AMR 417 (refd), the Court of Appeal held: "(3) The principles of negligence related to medical negligence are not based on the same criteria as ordinary negligence cases. ... [36] However, exemplary damages are discretionary and typically awarded only in cases of egregious misconduct. ... Dr Lim Soo How & Ors [2019] MLRHU 1774; [2019] 11 MLJ 628, the Court recognised the necessity of ex....
[24] The SCJ awarded damages as mentioned but did not award exemplary or aggravated damages, citing a lack of evidence to justify such claims The Appeal [25] The Appellants argued that the general damages awarded are inadequate, given the nature ... Professional medical advice suggests that rhinoplasty costs can reach RM50,000.00 making the awarded sum inadequate to compensate the appellants. [29] Regrettably, parties put the costs of future surgery....
Court held as follows: "We find that we cannot compare a particular libel case with other libel cases. ... Exemplary Damages [43] On the claim for exemplary damages, I refer to the principles laid down in the Gatley on Libel and Slander (11th Edition) (at pages 286-288) as follows: "(a) exemplary damages are often awarded to punish a defendant for the ... namely, general damages, aggravated #HL_....
) as follows: "(a) exemplary damages are often awarded to punish a defendant for the wilful commission of a tort or to teach him that tort does not pay; and (b) the award of exemplary damages is differentiated from aggravated damages in that it is to be awarded in the following 3 situations ... namely, general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages. ... I rule that the Plaintiff to be #....
Court held as follows: "We find that we cannot compare a particular libel case with other libel cases. ... Exemplary Damages [43] On the claim for exemplary damages, I refer to the principles laid down in the Gatley on Libel and Slander (11th Edn) (at pp 286-288) as follows: "(a) exemplary damages are often awarded to punish a defendant for the ... namely, general damages, aggravated d....
professional negligence. ... , exemplary damages of RM1,020,750.00 with an interest of 5% from January 2010 till full settlement and costs of RM20,000.00. ... in order to defeat the client's claim for damages in an action for negligence. ... [2] The learned High Court Judge ordered payment of RM6,300,000.00, general damages of RM50,000.00, exemplary damages of RM50,000.00 with interest at 5% per annum ... Wong Sin....
[47] If this part is cleared, only then the Court goes into the question of assessing the measure of exemplary damages to be awarded... ... [Emphasis Added] [46] The Court of Appeal in Sambaga Valli gave a description of what may amount to "outrageous" punishable conduct: [33] The exemplary damages or punitive damages -the two terms now regarded as interchangeable - are additional damages awarded ... Ex....
to find him liable for the alleged negligence. ... Thus, the damages awarded by the High Court in Supramaniam's case (supra) was reduced from RM200,000.00 to RM30,000.00 only. ... RM2.85 million as damages for loss of a chance in the absence of an expert witness in view of the recent Court of Appeal cases of Tetuan Theselim Mohd Sahal & Co & Ors v. ... Pursuant to the said judgment, an assessment of damages proceeded before the ....
7. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded.
The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in cassel & Co. Ltd. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III observed: 5. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded.
v. Broome 1972 AC 1027 : (1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principal that, 'an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law’. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta1 observed: ‘The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. 7. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded.
For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded. 7. In our view, this is a case of harassment of an ordinary citizen by the public functionary, may be that he has not succumbed to the pressure of undesirable functioning of the officers in charge and, therefore, is required to suffer. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263, observed: ‘The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded....
v Broome, 1972 AC 1027 : (1972) 1 All ER 801, on the principle that, ‘an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law’. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263, observed: ‘The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. 7. In our view, this....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
