Samuel A/L Frederick Joseph Hogg v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Berhad (WA-22NCvC-219-04/2019)

SAMUEL A/L FEDERICK JOSEPH HOGG (No. K/P: 450329-01-5143)

KISHAN A/L KANDAYA [No. K/P: 911221-14-5789] (Selaku Wakil Harta Pusaka Kandaya A/L Alagan (No. K/P: 490323-10-5275), simati

LEE KOK CHIANG (No. K/P: 300922-10-5111)

SOI LENG @ LAU SIEW LENG (No. K/P: 390225-01-5024/No. K/P Lama: 1288055)

KRISHNAN A/L ABBAYE NAIDU (No. K/P: 420501-10-5259/No. K/P Lama: 3960355)

LIM ANG SOOI (No. K/P: 501007-10-6007) 03/07/2026 16:10:47 WA-22NCvC-219-04/2019 Kand. 128

HOONG AH MOI (No. K/P: 551016-08-5370)

HONG SHOK NGIK (No. K/P: 530302-08-5344) ...PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BHD (Koop Peringkat Negara No.19)

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

This matter comes before this Court for the assessment of damages following the liability judgment dated 15.7.2024 and the subsequent Grounds of Judgment dated 23.9.2024.

The liability proceedings established inter alia:

(a) beneficial ownership in favour of the Plaintiffs; fiduciary and equitable obligations owed toward the Plaintiffs;

(b) wrongful dealings concerning the land;

(c) prolonged concealment and non-disclosure; and

(d) entitlement to assessment of general damages.

The liability judgment further recognised:

(a) entitlement to compensation relating to compulsory acquisition; and

(b) obligations to account for monies and benefits received in relation to the land.

Accordingly, the remaining issue before this Court concerns only the proper and fair quantification of damages arising from the wrongdoing already established.

The Court reiterates that the assessment of damages must remain:

(a) compensatory;

(b) principled;

(c) proportionate; and

(d) free from speculative future-development reconstruction.

The Court is therefore unable to accept any methodology which automatically equates the Plaintiffs’ losses with:

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

(b) projected developer profits; or

(c) decades-long hypothetical rental returns mathematically accumulated.

The Court must bear in mind that:

(a) the intended subdivision and development never materialised;

(b) no individual titles were ever issued; and

(c) the future development trajectory of the land remained uncertain and contingent.

The Court has considered the authorities relied upon by the Defendants including:

(a) Target Holdings v Redferns [1996] 1 A.C. 421;

(b) AIB Group v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503;

(c) Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1994]3 MLJ 777, 788;

(d) Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Anor and anor appeal [2024] 4 MLJ 749, 759 ; and

(e) Chong Shao Fen & Anor v Mehrzad Nabavieh & 4 Ors [2021 1 LNS 1869.

The Court accepts that those authorities correctly emphasise:

(a) causation principles;

(b) moderation in equitable compensation;

(c) avoidance of speculative reconstruction; and

(d) restraint against windfall recovery. C. THE PLAINTIFFS’ POSITION

The Plaintiffs relied heavily on:

(a) prolonged deprivation spanning several decades;

(b) destruction of beneficial enjoyment of the land;

(c) inability to realise the intended benefit of the land;

(d) estate and succession-related hardship; and

(e) fiduciary misconduct and concealment already judicially established.

The Court further notes that several Plaintiffs trace directly to the original purchasers involved in the 1978 Principal Sale and Purchase Agreement.

This materially strengthens:

(a) the historical participation dimension;

(b) the beneficial ownership dimension; and

(c) the Plaintiffs’ assertion that they were foundational participants in the entire sub-lot scheme. D. THE DEFENDANTS’ POSITION

The Defendants contended inter alia that:

(a) many aspects of the Plaintiffs’ claims were speculative;

(b) “loss of use” and “loss of rental” were not specifically pleaded;

(c) hypothetical bungalow-development profits could not properly be claimed; and

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

The Court accepts that these objections are relevant and important considerations.

However, the Court remains satisfied that:

(a) prolonged deprivation;

(b) exclusion from beneficial enjoyment;

(c) fiduciary misconduct; and

(d) wrongful concealment have already been conclusively established through the liability findings. 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 sub-lot scheme;

(c) exclusion from material dealings affecting the land;

(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 extraordinary;

(b) estate and succession complications arose over time; and

(c) several Plaintiffs effectively inherited unresolved deprivation spanning generations.

However, the Court must also ensure that:

(a) speculative future-development assumptions are avoided;

(b) the awards remain proportionate; and

(c) the assessment does not become punitive under the guise of compensation.

Having considered:

(a) the valuation materials;

(b) the prolonged duration involved;

(c) the multiplicity of Plaintiffs;

(d) the differing beneficial interests; 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 and defensible approach in Suit 219 is:

(a) not to mechanically multiply awards by the number of Plaintiffs;

(b) but instead to adopt calibrated collective assessment reflecting the scale and complexity of this suit.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM2,000,000.00 as global compensatory damages against the Defendants jointly and severally, to be apportioned among the Plaintiffs according to their respective beneficial interests.

The Court considers this figure appropriate because it:

(a) meaningfully recognises the prolonged deprivation suffered;

(b) reflects the historical and foundational participation of several Plaintiffs;

(c) recognises the estate and succession dimensions;

(d) acknowledges the fiduciary and equitable wrongdoing already established; and

(e) avoids speculative future-development reconstruction. F. AGGRAVATED DAMAGES

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;

(c) disregard of fiduciary obligations;

(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 injury suffered; and

(b) the prolonged uncertainty and exclusion caused substantial frustration and hardship extending across generations.

Nevertheless, the Court considers it important to maintain moderation and avoid duplication with compensatory damages.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM700,000.00 as global aggravated damages against the Defendants, to be apportioned among the Plaintiffs.

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

(c) technical contractual breach.

The findings already made include:

(a) deliberate concealment;

(b) knowing disregard of beneficial ownership;

(c) abuse of fiduciary position; and

(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

(c) avoidance of excessive punitive duplication.

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

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

(a) breaches of trust;

(b) fiduciary misconduct;

(c) concealment; and

(d) wrongful dealings over an exceptionally prolonged period of time.

The Court further recognises that:

(a) several Plaintiffs trace directly to the original purchasers in the 1978 transaction;

(b) estate and succession complications arose over generations; and

(c) the Plaintiffs were deprived for decades of the intended benefit of the sub-lot scheme.

Nevertheless, the assessment of damages must remain:

(a) principled;

(b) proportionate;

(c) compensatory in nature; and

(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 appropriately achieves that balance.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

(a) Global Compensatory Damages RM2,000,000.00 against the Defendants jointly and severally.

(b) Global Aggravated Damages RM700,000.00 against the Defendants jointly and severally.

(c) Global Exemplary Damages RM300,000.00 against the Defendant jointly and severally.

(d) Costs Costs of RM 50,000.00 to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants (RM25,000.00 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;

(c) concealment and non-disclosure;

(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 : David Soosay Messrs. Bryan Perera Quah & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Rajenthira Kumar & 1 & 2 (all suits) S. Murugesan Messrs. Murugesan Sinnandavar & Association Advocates & Solicitors