Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates the distinction between compensatory and exemplary damages in the tort of detinue and the requirement of contumelious conduct before exemplary damages may be awarded.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an appeal on the assessment of damages in a claim in the tort of detinue over a motor vehicle, and in particular the propriety of an award of exemplary damages. The respondent company was the registered and beneficial owner of a Range Rover, which it had permitted the appellant, an individual, to use; when that permission was revoked and the vehicle demanded back, the appellant refused to return it, and the company sued in detinue seeking return of the vehicle or, alternatively, damages based on its value, together with damages for loss of use. On the assessment of damages the Sessions Court had awarded the company a substantial global sum together with costs, including an amount of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages. The appellant appealed against the assessment, contending that the Sessions Court had erred in law in arriving at the sum awarded and, separately, in awarding exemplary damages. The court's analysis distinguished between compensatory damages for the wrongful detention and loss of use of the vehicle, which are designed to compensate the owner, and exemplary damages, which are punitive and available only where the defendant's conduct is sufficiently contumelious to warrant punishment beyond compensation. The court found that there was no contumelious conduct by the appellant that would justify punishment over and above damages for loss of use, so that the award of exemplary damages could not stand. It allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the exemplary damages and reducing the total sum payable by the appellant to the respondent to RM220,300.00 with interest and costs, and, the appellant having partly succeeded, ordered the respondent to pay the appellant costs of the appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the distinction between compensatory and exemplary damages in the tort of detinue and of the requirement of contumelious conduct before exemplary damages may be awarded.