1. ) ZAINAB BINTI ALIAS 2. ) SUHANA BINTI REDZWAN 3. ) IBRAHIM BIN KHALIL 4. ) MOHD HAMDAN BIN MOHD ADNAN 5. ) RAFIDAH BINTI IBRAHIM 6. ) MOHD AZMI BIN MOHD SHAH 7. ) HAMIDAH BINTI HAMZAH 8. ) ZULKIFLI BIN RAMLI 9. ) SYAZRIN DINIE BIN IBRAHIM @ ABD RAHMAN v RITZY GLOSS SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the assessment of damages under Order 37 of the Rules of Court 2012 following the failure of a substantive claim and its associated interlocutory relief, applying the compensatory principle that damages must be proved by the evidence.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns the assessment of damages payable to a respondent after the applicants' substantive claim had failed, in a dispute arising from the redevelopment and acquisition of land at Kampung Sungai Baru. The applicants had brought an originating summons invoking the Land Acquisition Act 1960, section 340 of the National Land Code and Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, together with an application for injunctive relief under Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012, in connection with the acquisition and redevelopment of the land. That originating summons was dismissed with costs on 5 September 2024. The respondent then applied for an assessment of the damages it had sustained, and the assessment proceeded under Order 37 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, which governs the assessment of damages by the court. The court's task was to determine, on the evidence, the loss actually caused, damages being compensatory in nature and recoverable only so far as proved. Allowing the respondent's application, the court assessed special damages comprising legal fees of RM543,076 and idling costs of RM35,480, RM2,835 and RM3,132, amounting in total to RM584,523, together with general, aggravated and exemplary damages of RM50,000 referable to each of the applicants, and it awarded interest at 5% on the assessed sum from the date of the order until full settlement. The judgment is a useful illustration of the assessment of damages under Order 37 following the failure of a substantive claim and the interlocutory relief associated with it, and of the compensatory principle that damages must be proved by the evidence adduced. The judgment also illustrates the practical consequences that can follow the pursuit of an unsuccessful injunction: a party that obtains or seeks interlocutory relief and then fails in its substantive claim may be required to compensate the opposing party for the losses caused, and the court's role at the assessment stage is to fix those losses by reference to the proof rather than to any figure asserted at large.