Court DecisionMY-HCIn force

/akn/my/judgment/high-court/2026/6079cc2f-e9d4-4927-9804-7c43e616efe2

Jeeva Jothy A/P Satchithanandan v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Berhad (WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019)

High Court of Malaysia22 May 2026WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019

Antara

JEEVA JOTHY A/P SATCHITHANANDAN [NO. K/P: 570906-10-5074]

SATHESELAN A/L PERIASAMY [NO. K/P: 561210-10-6461)

YOGESWARAN A/L POKANNI [NO. K/P: 850604-10-5825]

KANDASAMY A/L ARUMUGAM [NO. K/P: 481119-10-5011)

MURUGASU A/L PERIASAMY [NO. K/P: 470209-10-5281)

YAP LAN @ YAP LAM [NO. K/P: 451218-10-5386]

LIM MEI WAH [NO. K/P: 630904-10-7334) (mendakwa dalam kapasiti pentadbir dan benefisiari harta pusaka 03/07/2026 16:09:33 WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019 Kand. 202 YAP SONG NAN simati)

SUPRAMANIAM @ MURUGAVELOO A/L KANDASAMY [NO. K/P: 461030-10-5017]

KAMALAM A/P SINNAIAH [NO. K/P: 510305-10-5592] (mendakwa dalam kapasiti pentadbir dan benefisiari harta pusaka BALASUNDARAM A/L KARUPPIAH, simati)

KONG SOI POY [NO. K/P: 401101-10-5264]

LIM ANG JOO [NO. K/P: 580213-10-5855]

PARAMESWARAN RAM A/L SATCHITHANANDAM [NO. K/P: 610822-10-5695] … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

Dan

KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BHD [Koop Peringkat Negara No.19]

GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L V SUBRAMANIAM [NO. K/P: 390127-01-5231]

METRO ESQUIRE (M) SDN BHD [No. Syarikat: 563167-K] … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

A. Introduction

This matter comes before this Court for the assessment of damages following the judgment delivered after the completion of the full trial involving this suit and several related actions.

In the liability proceedings, the Court made extensive findings against the Defendants relating to:

(a) breach of trust;

(b) breach of fiduciary obligations;

(d) wrongful dealings concerning the land; and

(e) disregard of the beneficial interests of the sub-lot purchasers.

The Court further recognised that the Plaintiffs possessed beneficial interests in the land notwithstanding that the legal title remained registered in the name of the 1st Defendant.

The present proceedings therefore concern only the proper assessment and quantification of damages arising from the wrongdoing already established.

B. The Applicable Principles

The Court reiterates that the assessment of damages must remain:

(a) compensatory;

(b) principled; and

Whilst the Court must ensure that the Plaintiffs receive meaningful compensation for the wrongdoing established, the Court must equally avoid awards founded upon speculation or hypothetical future profits incapable of precise proof.

Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt any methodology which automatically equates the Plaintiffs’ losses with:

(a) the full present market value of completed bungalow developments;

(b) projected developer profits; or

The Court must bear in mind that:

(a) the intended subdivision and development never materialised;

(b) no individual titles were ever issued; and

The Plaintiffs contended that they suffered:

(a) prolonged deprivation of beneficial enjoyment of the land;

(b) frustration of the intended sub-lot scheme;

(d) loss of opportunity to utilise the land; and

(e) prolonged uncertainty over several decades.

Several Plaintiffs further relied on:

(a) longstanding expectations of utilising the land for family-home purposes;

(b) succession and estate-related hardship; and

The Plaintiffs also relied on:

(a) the Scott Schedule methodology;

(b) valuation materials; and

The Defendants contended inter alia that:

(a) certain delays were attributable to caveats and planning difficulties;

(b) some Plaintiffs possessed only limited or differing interests;

(d) the proposed valuation methodology would result in unjust enrichment.

The Court accepts that these matters are relevant contextual considerations.

However, the Court remains satisfied that:

(a) beneficial ownership;

(b) fiduciary obligations;

(d) prolonged deprivation have already been conclusively established in the liability proceedings.

At most, the matters raised by the Defendants justify moderation and proportionality in the assessment exercise. They do not extinguish the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to substantial relief.

E. General / Compensatory Damages

The Court accepts that the Plaintiffs suffered:

(a) prolonged deprivation of beneficial enjoyment of the land;

(b) frustration of the intended bungalow-lot scheme;

(d) inability to realise the intended benefit of the land; and

(e) prolonged uncertainty extending over several decades.

The Court further accepts that:

(a) the duration involved was exceptionally long;

(b) several Plaintiffs effectively inherited unresolved deprivation spanning generations; and

However, the Court must also ensure that:

(a) speculative future-development assumptions are avoided;

(b) the awards remain proportionate; and

Having considered:

(a) the valuation materials;

(b) the Scott Schedule;

(d) the differing beneficial interests involved; and

(e) the totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that substantial but moderated compensatory damages are appropriate.

The Court further considers that the most coherent approach in Suit 212 is:

(a) not to mechanically award identical figures to every Plaintiff;

(b) but instead to adopt calibrated assessment reflecting the differing beneficial participation and circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court awards compensatory damages within the following framework:

(a) Ordinary single sub-lot Plaintiffs RM300,000.00 – RM450,000.00

(b) Plaintiffs with multiple retained interests/sub-lots RM500,000.00 – RM700,000.00

The Court considers this approach:

(a) rationally connected to the evidence;

(b) proportionate; and

The Court is satisfied that aggravated damages are warranted.

The findings already made reveal conduct involving:

(a) prolonged concealment;

(b) abuse of trust and confidence;

(d) exclusion of beneficial owners from material dealings; and

(e) prolonged failure to properly account to the Plaintiffs.

The Court further accepts that:

(a) the manner in which the wrongdoing was committed aggravated the

(b) injury suffered; and

However, given the multiplicity of Plaintiffs in Suit 212, the Court considers it more appropriate to award aggravated damages in a calibrated collective manner.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM500,000.00 as global aggravated damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, to be apportioned among the Plaintiffs according to their respective interests and circumstances.

G. Exemplary Damages

The Court is further satisfied that exemplary damages are justified.

The conduct established against the Defendants goes beyond:

(a) mere negligence;

(b) administrative failure; or

The findings already made include:

(a) deliberate concealment;

(b) knowing disregard of beneficial ownership;

(d) dealings adverse to the Plaintiffs’ interests without informed consent.

The Court is satisfied that such conduct warrants punitive and deterrent response.

However, the Court must also ensure:

(a) moderation;

(b) proportionality; and

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM300,000.00 as global exemplary damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants, to be apportioned among the Plaintiffs.

H. Overall Assessment

The Court is fully cognisant that the Plaintiffs suffered genuine and substantial injustice arising from:

(a) the Defendants’ breaches of trust;

(b) fiduciary misconduct;

(d) wrongful dealings over a prolonged period of time.

Nevertheless, the assessment of damages must remain:

(a) principled;

(b) proportionate;

(d) free from speculative future-development reconstruction.

Having considered the totality of the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that the above assessment framework appropriately achieves that balance.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

(a) Compensatory Damages • Ordinary Plaintiffs RM350,000 each • Estate/Family Plaintiffs RM450,000 each • Multiple-interest Plaintiff(s) RM600,000 each Against 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

(b) Aggravated Damages RM500,000.00 globally against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

(d) Costs Costs of RM60,000.00 against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants (RM20,000.00 each)

(e) Interest Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the judgment sums from the date of judgment until full realisation. I. CLARIFICATION PROCEEDINGS

Following the delivery of the assessment judgment, learned counsel sought clarification concerning the awards described as aggravated damages and exemplary damages.

The Court afforded all parties the opportunity to address the issues raised.

The Court carefully considered those submissions and made a ruling as follows: “CLARIFICATION BY THE COURT

These five matters were fixed today pursuant to the request by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs seeking clarification concerning certain portions of the Court's assessment judgments delivered on 22nd May 2026.

The clarification sought principally concerns the awards described in the assessment judgments as aggravated damages and exemplary damages.

Having considered the request made by learned counsel, the Court makes the following observations.

At the outset, it is important to note that the present session is fixed for clarification only. It is not an appeal, review, rehearing, or application to vary the judgments already delivered by this Court.

Accordingly, the Court's function today is confined to clarifying the basis upon which the assessment judgments were made and not to revisit the merits of those judgments.

(A) Aggravated Damages 6. In relation to the awards described in the assessment judgments as aggravated damages, the Court wishes to clarify that those awards were made in the context of the Court's assessment of the compensatory consequences flowing from the findings already made in the liability judgments.

The liability judgments contained findings relating, among others, to:

(a) breach of trust;

(b) breach of fiduciary obligations;

(d) fraud and wrongful dealings;

(e) prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership rights; and

(f) exclusion of the Plaintiffs from matters affecting the land in which they possessed beneficial interests.

In assessing the Plaintiffs' entitlement to damages, the Court took into account not only the fact of the loss suffered, but also the manner in which the wrongdoing was committed and the consequences flowing therefrom.

The Court therefore regarded those aggravating features as relevant factors in assessing the Plaintiffs' compensatory entitlement.

The awards described as aggravated damages were not intended to create a new or independent cause of action, but formed part of the Court's assessment of the consequences arising from the wrongdoing already established in the liability judgments.

(B) Exemplary Damages

As regards exemplary damages, the position differs between the various suits.

In Suit Nos. WA-22NCvC-68-01/2018, WA-22NCvC- 567-10/2017 and WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019, the liability judgments expressly provided for exemplary damages to be assessed and/or awarded.

The assessment judgments in those suits therefore concerned the quantification of exemplary damages which had already been recognised in principle by the liability judgments.

Accordingly, the Court does not accept that exemplary damages were introduced for the first time during the assessment proceedings in those three suits.

In relation to Suit Nos. WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019 and WA-22NCvC-219-04/2019, learned counsel's submissions have been noted.

However, the Court takes the view that the matters raised by learned counsel concern the legal propriety and correctness of the awards made in the assessment judgments themselves.

Such issues go beyond clarification of the meaning or effect of the Court's orders and touch upon the merits of the judgments already delivered.

The Court has already set out its reasons in the respective Grounds of Judgment.

To the extent that any party contends that the Court erred in law or in principle in arriving at those awards, such complaint concerns the correctness of the judgments and is a matter properly addressed through the appellate process rather than by way of clarification.

Accordingly, the Court clarifies that:

(a) The awards described as aggravated damages were made in the course of the Court's assessment of the consequences arising from the breaches of trust, fiduciary misconduct, concealment, fraud and prolonged deprivation established in the liability judgments.

(b) In Suit Nos. WA-22NCvC-68-01/2018, WA- 22NCvC-567-10/2017 and WA-22NCvC-208- 04/2019, the liability judgments themselves expressly contemplated the award and assessment of exemplary damages.

(c) Insofar as the complaints raised by learned counsel challenge the legal correctness or propriety of the awards contained in the assessment judgments, those matters concern the merits of the judgments and are not matters capable of being determined through a clarification exercise. That is the Court's clarification.” J. CONCLUSION

Throughout the assessment exercise, the Court remained mindful that the estate had been deprived of its beneficial proprietary interest for an exceptionally prolonged period through conduct already found to constitute serious breaches of trust and fiduciary obligations.

The Court sought to arrive at awards that were fair, proportionate and firmly grounded in the evidence whilst avoiding speculative methodologies.

The Court was satisfied that the combination of compensatory damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages appropriately reflected the seriousness of the wrongdoing established and the prolonged deprivation suffered by the estate. Dated: 3rd July 2026 ……………………………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Hiral Sanghvi Messrs. Shearn Delamore & Co. Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Rajenthira Kumar & 1 & 2 (all suits) S. Murugesan Messrs. Murugesan Sinnandavar & Association Advocates & Solicitors

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 22 May 2026
Case number: WA-22NCvC-212-04/2019
Coram: YA Puan Mahazan Binti Mat Taib
Practice area: Civil Procedure – Assessment of damages – Assessment following liability judgment after full trial – Liability conclusively determined – Assessment confined to quantification of damages arising from established liability. Damages – Compensatory damages – Beneficial proprietary interests – Multiple plaintiffs – Categorised assessment – Ordinary plaintiffs – Estate/family plaintiffs – Multiple-interest plaintiffs – Moderated judicial assessment – Rejection of speculative valuation methodology – Awards calibrated according to differing beneficial interests and factual circumstances. Damages – Aggravated damages – Global award – Breach of trust – Breach of fiduciary duty – Concealment – Non-disclosure – Abuse of fiduciary obligations – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership – Whether aggravated damages formed part of the Court's assessment of the consequences of the established wrongdoing. Damages – Exemplary damages – Global award – Punitive and deterrent award – Proportionality – Avoidance of duplication with compensatory and aggravated damages – Assessment of quantum. Equity – Trusts – Beneficial ownership – Fiduciary obligations – Wrongful dealings with trust property – Failure to account – Assessment of damages arising from breach of trust and fiduciary duties. Evidence – Valuation evidence – Scott Schedule – Market valuation – Speculative future development value – Judicial moderation – Whether valuation evidence should be adopted as the mathematical measure of recoverable damages. Civil Procedure – Clarification proceedings – Scope of clarification – Clarification of legal basis of aggravated and exemplary damages – Distinction between clarification and appeal – Challenge to correctness of the assessment judgment properly a matter for the appellate process
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 3 Jul 2026
Source ID: d7dd55a7-982d-4e24-ae27-a9880fb83f93

Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Assessment of damages – Assessment following liability judgment after full trial – Liability conclusively determined – Assessment confined to quantification of damages arising from established liability. Damages – Compensatory damages – Beneficial proprietary interests – Multiple plaintiffs – Categorised assessment – Ordinary plaintiffs – Estate/family plaintiffs – Multiple-interest plaintiffs – Moderated judicial assessment – Rejection of speculative valuation methodology – Awards calibrated according to differing beneficial interests and factual circumstances. Damages – Aggravated damages – Global award – Breach of trust – Breach of fiduciary duty – Concealment – Non-disclosure – Abuse of fiduciary obligations – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership – Whether aggravated damages formed part of the Court's assessment of the consequences of the established wrongdoing. Damages – Exemplary damages – Global award – Punitive and deterrent award – Proportionality – Avoidance of duplication with compensatory and aggravated damages – Assessment of quantum. Equity – Trusts – Beneficial ownership – Fiduciary obligations – Wrongful dealings with trust property – Failure to account – Assessment of damages arising from breach of trust and fiduciary duties. Evidence – Valuation evidence – Scott Schedule – Market valuation – Speculative future development value – Judicial moderation – Whether valuation evidence should be adopted as the mathematical measure of recoverable damages. Civil Procedure – Clarification proceedings – Scope of clarification – Clarification of legal basis of aggravated and exemplary damages – Distinction between clarification and appeal – Challenge to correctness of the assessment judgment properly a matter for the appellate process

Parties

1. ) JEEVA JOTHY A/P SATCHITHANANDAN - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
2. ) SATHESELAN A/L PERIASAMY - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
3. ) YOGESWARAN A/L POKANNI - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
4. ) KANDASAMY A/L ARUMUGAM - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
5. ) MURUGASU A/L PERIASAMY - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
6. ) YAP LAN @ YAP LAM - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Parties

1. ) JEEVA JOTHY A/P SATCHITHANANDAN - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

2. ) SATHESELAN A/L PERIASAMY - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

3. ) YOGESWARAN A/L POKANNI - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

4. ) KANDASAMY A/L ARUMUGAM - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

5. ) MURUGASU A/L PERIASAMY - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties

6. ) YAP LAN @ YAP LAM - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties