REGAL ELITE LETRIK SDN BHD v SPEEDLINK COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD

Case Significance

Instructive on the requirement to plead special damages with particularity and a stated basis of interest, and on the appellate remedy of affirming liability while remitting quantum and interest for rehearing on amended pleadings.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru is an appeal from a Sessions Court judgment in a claim for damage to underground fibre-optic cables. The respondent, a telecommunications company, had sued the appellant for loss and damage caused to its underground fibre-optic cables by horizontal directional drilling work carried out by the appellant, and after a full trial the Sessions Court entered judgment against the appellant for two sums totalling RM248,166, with interest at 12% per annum from a specified date and scale costs. The appellant appealed, raising a large number of grounds directed at both liability and the quantification of damages, interest rate and interest period. The court, per Dr Noradura binti Hamzah JC, allowed the appeal in part. On liability, it upheld the Sessions Court's finding that the appellant was liable for the cable damage, the supporting invoices being unchallenged, and affirmed that finding. On quantum, however, it found error: the award of damages, the 12% interest rate and the commencement of the interest period were set aside for legal non-compliance and inadequate pleading, in particular the failure to plead the special damages with a specific breakdown and to state the basis of the interest claimed. The court directed the respondent to amend its statement of claim within 14 days to plead the components of special damages with particulars and their basis of computation and to clarify the basis of the post-judgment interest sought, and remitted the questions of quantum, interest rate and interest period to the Sessions Court for rehearing before a different judge, with post-judgment interest to follow the rate under Order 42 rule 12 and the applicable Practice Direction, currently 5%, unless proved otherwise. The court explained that this course allowed the respondent to prove its claim once the pleadings were amended while protecting the appellant from being made liable on unpleaded sums or interest exceeding the legal limit. The judgment is instructive on the requirement to plead special damages with particularity and on the appellate remedy of remitting quantum for rehearing while affirming liability.