1. ) LOKUS MEDICAL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) WONG POW LAI v 1. ) LOKUS/LOCUS LLC (RUSSIA) 2. ) MALKOV ANDREI VIKTOROVICH 3. ) PETRU BALMUS 4. ) ALLIANCE CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 5. ) TAN GING HOON 6. ) IVAN ANG KHENG HUAT

Case Significance

A detailed post-trial resolution of a business-conspiracy and interference claim over a proprietary medical device, illustrating differentiated findings across multiple defendants and the award of nominal alongside exemplary damages to punish and deter the wrongdoers found liable.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, delivered after a nineteen-day trial, concerns claims in conspiracy to injure and interference with business over a medical device known as the Lokus Bandage, a polyurethane foam adhesive dressing for chronic wounds. The first plaintiff, Lokus Medical (M) Sdn Bhd, alleged that the defendants had conspired to injure it and interfered with its business, causing loss, and sought declarations and damages; the second plaintiff separately claimed repayment of a personal loan from the third defendant. The defendants counterclaimed against the first plaintiff. The device had originally been manufactured in Russia by the first defendant, a Russian company, before the plaintiffs became involved in the business, and the dispute turned on the termination of the manufacturing and related agreements and the conduct of the various defendants, who included two foreign individuals, a local contract manufacturer (the fourth defendant) and two further individuals. Weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the court allowed the first plaintiff's claim against the first, second and third defendants for the tort of conspiracy and related wrongs, and dismissed their counterclaims, but dismissed the first plaintiff's claim against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants and allowed the fourth defendant's counterclaim. It also allowed the first plaintiff's detinue claim against the fourth defendant in respect of bandages manufactured on the first plaintiff's instructions, holding the first plaintiff to be their rightful owner, while dismissing the second plaintiff's personal-loan claim. On relief, and noting that exemplary damages are punitive rather than compensatory, the court awarded nominal damages of RM50,000 each against the first, second and third defendants, and exemplary damages of RM150,000 against the first defendant and RM100,000 each against the second and third defendants; it also ordered an escrowed sum to be divided between the first plaintiff's solicitors and the fourth defendant.