HEIWA SANGYO SDN BHD v 1. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNISAMY 2. ) MOHD BAHAROM BIN SAID 3. ) MUHD LUQMAN NULHAKIM BIN MOHD ZULKAPLI 4. ) INDKOM HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the establishment of trespass and nuisance to rented premises through witness and CCTV evidence where the tenant is in lawful possession, and the direct assessment of damages where the loss from an interference with possession can be quantified without a separate inquiry.

This High Court decision concerns claims in trespass and nuisance arising from interference with a company's occupation of rented business premises. The plaintiff company sued for declarations that it was the lawful tenant and occupier of the premises until a fixed date, for injunctions restraining the defendants from entering the premises and from disrupting its business operations, and for general, aggravated and exemplary damages. The defendants comprised individuals and a company said to have entered and interfered with the premises. The court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses and CCTV recordings, and found that the plaintiff had established its cause of action in trespass and nuisance. A key element was the question of possession: the court found that the plaintiff was in lawful occupation and had not breached the tenancy or sharing arrangement, so that the defendants' entry and interference with its business amounted to trespass and nuisance. On damages, the court held that the loss flowing from the trespass could be assessed directly without a separate assessment exercise, and awarded the plaintiff general, aggravated and exemplary damages against the first defendant, limited to RM50,000.00, while making corresponding findings in respect of the other defendants; where it declined a head of damages, no interest or further assessment followed. The court reasoned that the essential element in establishing trespass and nuisance was that the defendants' claim to possession or entitlement was not made out, whereas the plaintiff's occupation was lawful and undisturbed by any breach of its own agreements. The court awarded costs of RM10,000.00, reflecting that only part of the plaintiff's claim had succeeded. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts establish trespass and nuisance to rented premises through witness and CCTV evidence, and of the approach to assessing damages directly where the loss from an interference with possession can be quantified without a separate inquiry.