Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Ganti rugi teladan (exemplary damages):- Merupakan ganti rugi yang diberikan untuk menghukum defendan atas kelakuan buruk dan sebagai peringatan kepada orang lain agar tidak mengulangi perbuatan tersebut.- Biasanya diberikan dalam kes yang melampau dan menunjukkan tindakan yang menindas, sewenang-wenangnya, atau tidak berperlembagaan [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2018_5_MLRH_120), ["
CHE GAYEH A RAHMAN & SATU LAGI LWN. SAHIPUNIZAM ABDUL AZIZ & SATU LAGI - High Court
"].- Contoh jumlah yang diberikan termasuk RM5,000,000.00 ["CASACORAZON SDN BHD & SATU LAGI LWN. KU MUHAMMAD HILMIE KU DIN - High Court
"], RM50,000.00 ["Gan Chon Tat dan satu lagi lwn vs Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim dan satu lagi
"], dan RM70,000.00 ["KARTHIK GOVINDARAJOO & SATU LAGI LWN. GARTIBAN KARUNA NITHI & SATU LAGI - High Court
"].Ganti rugi teruk (aggravated damages):- Diberikan apabila plaintif mengalami tekanan, kesusahan, cemas, atau penderitaan mental akibat perbuatan defendan, dan berbeza dari ganti rugi teladan.- Ia bertujuan menghukum defendan dan mencegah pengulangan kesalahan [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2018_5_MLRH_120), ["
CHE GAYEH A RAHMAN & SATU LAGI LWN. SAHIPUNIZAM ABDUL AZIZ & SATU LAGI - High Court
"].- Contoh jumlah termasuk RM20,000.00 [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2016_6_MLRH_675), RM50,000.00 ["Gan Chon Tat dan satu lagi lwn vs Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim dan satu lagi
"], dan RM1,000,000.00 [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRA_2022_4_MLRA_147).CHE GAYEH A RAHMAN & SATU LAGI LWN. SAHIPUNIZAM ABDUL AZIZ & SATU LAGI - High Court
"], [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2018_5_MLRH_120).SHAPIEI ZAINAL ABIDIN & YANG LAIN LWN. KETUA POLIS DAERAH SHAH ALAM & YANG LAIN - High Court
"], dan plaintif mesti menunjukkan bahawa mereka adalah mangsa perbuatan terkutuk tersebut [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2018_6_MLRH_562).CASACORAZON SDN BHD & SATU LAGI LWN. KU MUHAMMAD HILMIE KU DIN - High Court
"], ["CASACORAZON SDN BHD & SATU LAGI LWN. KU MUHAMMAD HILMIE KU DIN - High Court
"].MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT & YANG LAIN LWN. MAT NAWI AWANG - High Court
"].PERNIAGAAN CHUAN SENG & SATU LAGI LWN. AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD - Mahkamah Majistret Kluang
"].Ganti rugi teladan dan teruk adalah bentuk ganti rugi khas yang digunakan untuk menghukum defendan atas perbuatan yang melampau dan memberi peringatan kepada pihak lain. Prinsip utama mengatur pemberian ini adalah bahawa ia hanya layak diberikan dalam kes yang melampau dan memenuhi kategori tertentu, serta apabila plaintif dapat membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah mangsa perbuatan terkutuk tersebut. Mahkamah sering menolak tuntutan yang tidak memenuhi syarat ini atau apabila fakta tidak cukup kuat untuk membenarkan pemberian ganti rugi teladan dan teruk [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2016_6_MLRH_675), ["
CASACORAZON SDN BHD & SATU LAGI LWN. KU MUHAMMAD HILMIE KU DIN - High Court
"].
In the realm of in Malaysia, plaintiffs often seek various forms of damages to address wrongs suffered, such as in torts or . A common question arises: what is dan teladan, and what are the principles governing such damages? These terms refer to () and (), which go beyond standard compensation. While compensate for loss, these special categories address heightened harm or punish egregious conduct. This post explores their definitions, distinctions, and judicial principles, drawing from key case law and sources. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
(Exemplary or ): These are awarded not mainly to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant's outrageous conduct and deter future wrongdoing. Malaysian courts prefer , aligning with common usage. They are synonymous with , aiming to sanction deliberate or malicious acts
.
(): These compensate for aggravated harm to the plaintiff, often due to the defendant's malicious or humiliating conduct. Unlike , they focus on enhancing compensation for the plaintiff's suffering rather than pure punishment. Courts recognize them as separate
. For instance, () 38 Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa adalah berasingan dan berbe...
.
Plaintiffs frequently claim both, sometimes quantifying them equally, e.g., RM5,000,000 for teladan and RM5,000,000 for teruk, or alternatively leaving assessment to the court
.
The in Sambaga Valli KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors set key benchmarks. may be awarded where the defendant acts with:
.
.
The behavior must exceed negligence—it requires deliberate, malicious, or contumelious acts. Good faith actions, like enforcing contractual rights, do not qualify
.
Courts exercise discretion judiciously, demanding clear evidence of malice. Exemplary and punitive terms are interchangeable in Malaysia, both for punishment and deterrence
.
These damages are non-quantifiable, reflecting misconduct severity rather than precise loss. The in Johandra Realty Sdn Bhd (, ) confirmed this
. Claims for both types, if liquidated without justification, risk excessive default judgments
.
enhance for intensified injury, such as reputational harm or humiliation. In one case, a plaintiff claimed RM14,046 in , , teruk, and teladan, but the court awarded only RM3,046 special and RM7,000 general, rejecting teruk and teladan for lack of supporting facts
. Tuntutan bagi dan teladan ditolak berdasarkan ketiadaan fakta untuk menyokong permohonan tersebut
.
In defamation, courts assess reputational impact strictly. A plaintiff organization aiding Syrian victims won RM50,000 for defamatory statements, but teladan claims failed without linkage to reputation harm
.
.
.
.
Courts take judicial notice of injuries and award reasonably, as in personal injury claims where require strict proof
.
.
.
Awards are not automatic—clear evidence of malice or serious misconduct is required. Courts avoid penalizing legitimate disputes or good faith, preventing excessive sums that resemble penalties
. In representative suits or customs cases, principles like certainty and proof apply analogously, but these damages demand higher thresholds 2019 7 Supreme 265.
| Type | Purpose | Key Requirement ||------|---------|-----------------|| | Enhance compensation for aggravated harm | Evidence of humiliating/malicious impact on plaintiff
|| | Punish and deter defendant | Vindictiveness, malice, or
|
.
.
.
and teladan serve vital roles in Malaysian law: compensating deeper wounds and punishing egregious acts to maintain justice. Courts apply them cautiously, guided by precedents like Sambaga Valli, ensuring fairness. Whether in , defamation, or contracts, understanding these principles can shape litigation strategies. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.
Sources Cited:
#GantiRugiTeruk, #GantiRugiTeladan, #MalaysianLaw
Ganti rugi kecederaan reputasi diri dan perniagaan sebanyak RM500,000.00 b. Ganti rugi teladan berjumlah RM500,000.00 c. Ganti rugi teruk (aggravated) berjumlah RM500,000.00 (v) Ganti rugi teruk (aggravated) (vi) Faedah dan kos. ... Award yang telah diberikan oleh Timbalan Pendaftar sama ada berkaitan dengan ganti rugi kehilan....
Ganti rugi teladan sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. C. Ganti rugi teruk sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. D. Secara alternatif, ganti rugi teladan dan teruk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah. E. Ganti rugi pampasan yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah F. Faedah. G. Kos. ... Jika diperhatikan, sejak dari awal, relif yang diplidkan adalah RM5,000,000.00 bagi ganti ru....
Ganti rugi teladan sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. C. Ganti rugi teruk sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. D. Secara alternatif, ganti rugi teladan dan teruk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah. E. Ganti rugi pampasan yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah F. Faedah. G. Kos. ... Jika diperhatikan, sejak dari awal, relif yang diplidkan adalah RM5,000,000.00 bagi ganti ru....
Ganti rugi teladan sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. C. Ganti rugi teruk sebanyak RM5,000,000.00. D. Secara alternatif, ganti rugi teladan dan teruk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah. E. Ganti rugi pampasan yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah F. Faedah. G. Kos. ... Jika diperhatikan, sejak dari awal, relif yang diplidkan adalah RM5,000,000.00 bagi ganti ru....
Ganti rugi-ganti rugi berikut untuk ditaksirkan: (i) Ganti rugi kehilangan pendapatan perniagaan (ii) Ganti rugi kecederaan reputasi diri dan perniagaan (iii) Ganti rugi khas (iv) Ganti rugi teladan (v) Ganti rugi teruk (aggravated) (vi) Faedah dan kos. ... (iii) #HL_START....
Barnard (No 1) [1964] 1 AC 1129; tidak semestinya kerana defendan pertama seorang pegawai kerajaan, ganti rugi teruk dan teladan diawadkan - ; [2015] 3 MLJ 105; [2015] 2 CLJ 231 dan ganti rugi teruk dan teladan hanya diberi dalam kes yang melampau - ; [2015] 3 MLJ 669; [2015] 3 CLJ ... kecil dan tidak kepada ganti rugi teruk #....
Maka, Plaintif menuntut daripada Defendan ganti rugi khas berjumlah RM14,046.00, ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk dan/atau teladan, faedah dan kos. ... Ganti Rugi Teruk (Aggravated Damages) [38] Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa ganti rugi teruk adalah berasingan dan berbe....
Maka, Plaintif menuntut daripada Defendan ganti rugi khas berjumlah RM14,046.00, ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk dan/atau teladan, faedah dan kos. ... Ganti Rugi Teruk (Aggravated Damages) [38] Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa ganti rugi teruk adalah berasingan dan berbe....
Plaintif memohon sejumlah ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teladan dan ganti rugi khas. ... kepada ganti rugi am yang kecil dan tidak kepada ganti rugi teruk dan teladan atas alasan reputasi dan nama buruk plaintif tiada kaitan dengan kenyataan yang dikatakan oleh defendan pertama. ... Oleh itu pla....
Mahkamah berpuashati bahawa setiap Def wajar dan munasabah diawardkan sebanyak RM 50,000.00 sebagai ganti rugi teruk. Ganti Rugi Teladan [59]Tuntutan terakhir Def adalah berkaitan ganti rugi teladan. ... Ganti Rugi Teruk dibayar oleh Plf kepada setiap Def sebanyak RM 50,000.00 kepada Def 1 dan RM 50,000.00 kepada Def 2; d)Ganti#HL_END....
This is, unquestionably, has to be the defining consideration, and it is in the backdrop of the answer to this query that all other queries would have to be examined. (2) What are the contours of "deceptive similarity", as a test to ascertain the existence, or non-existence, of infringement? One may identify, even at this prima facie stage, the following clear issues, which arise for consideration: (1) What are the principles governing grant of interim injunction, in trade mark cases?
We may now consider what the principles governing the establishment of a custom under Muslim law are. It is a settled position of law that a custom in order to be legal and binding must be certain, reasonable and acted upon in practice for a long period with such invariability and continuity that it has become the established governing rule in a community by common consent. It is equally settled that it is incumbent upon the party relying on the custom to plead and prove it.
5. The main question that has been argued before us is that the first award was set aside on May 25, 1953, the reference was exhausted and the arbitrator had become functus officio and it was therefore not possible without a fresh arbitration agreement to have the same dispute decided again by the arbitrator, irrespective of whether the letter of September 7, 1953, amounted to a second reference or was a mere request for continuation of the proceedings in the original reference, which had proved abortive as the award originally made had been set aside. Reliance in this connection i....
"Damages are the pecuniary compensation, obtainable by success in an action, for a wrong which is either a tort or a breach of contract, the compensation being in the form of a lump sum which is awarded unconditionally". Broadly speaking, general damages are compensation for that kind of damage which the law presumes to follow from the wrong complained of and which therefore, need not be specifically mentioned in the pleadings. However, the Supreme Court did not, in Common Cause, go into the question of what constitutes general damages or special damages, though it considered the d....
The loss of future earnings consisting of real assessable pecuniary loss likely to be suffered as a result of accident and the loss of earning capacity arising from reduction in capacity to earn money on account of injury sustained, which are required to be determined, considering the loss of earning capacity. The loss on account of deprivation of future earnings is divisible into two distinct categories. In this class of case it may be difficult to make any direct comparison between one case and another; all one can do is to consider the Courts approach to the problem in comparable cases an....
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
