Court DecisionMY-HCIn force

/akn/my/judgment/high-court/2026/19378f48-a677-4df3-b1f3-c20406863fc9

Suhirtharatnam A/L K. Kularatnam v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Bhd (WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019)

High Court of Malaysia22 May 2026WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019

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-208-04/2019

Antara

SUHIRTHARATNAM A/L PONNIAH (No. K/P: 510713-05-5483)

SHARMINI A/P KANAGASABAI [No. K/P: 630204-10-7704] (Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Kanagasabai A/L Nagamuttu) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

Dan

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

GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L V SUBRAMANIAM [NO. K/P: 390127-01-5231] … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

A. Introduction

This matter comes before this Court for the assessment of damages following the judgment delivered on 15.7.2024 after 03/07/2026 16:05:39 WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019 Kand. 131 the completion of a full trial involving this suit and several related actions.

In the liability judgment and the subsequent Grounds of Judgment dated 23.9.2024, the Court made extensive findings against the Defendants relating to:

(a) breach of trust;

(b) breach of fiduciary duties;

(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.

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

B. The Applicable Principles

The assessment of damages must remain compensatory and principled in nature.

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

The Court is therefore unable to accept any approach which effectively treats the Plaintiffs as automatically entitled to:

(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 title was ever issued;

Accordingly, whilst the Plaintiffs undeniably suffered serious legal wrongs, the Court declines to adopt a purely mathematical valuation methodology based upon speculative future-development gains or projected rental yields.

The Court has considered the authorities relied upon by the Defendants including Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] 1 A.C. 421 and AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503 concerning principled limits on equitable compensation and causation. Target Holdings v Redferns and AIB Group v Mark Redler are two landmark English trusts law cases establishing that trustees are only liable to pay equitable compensation for losses actually caused by their breach of trust, rather than requiring them to automatically reconstitute the entire initial trust

C. The Plaintiffs’ Position

The Plaintiffs contended that they suffered substantial loss arising from:

(a) prolonged deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the land;

(b) frustration of the intended family-home and retirement-home purpose;

(d) prolonged uncertainty over several decades; and

(e) oppressive conduct by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs further relied on:

(a) the Scott Schedule;

(b) valuation materials;

(d) authorities concerning fiduciary misconduct and equitable compensation.

The Court further notes the Plaintiffs’ evidence concerning:

(a) repeated attempts over many years to obtain information regarding the land;

(b) the inability to realise the intended family-home purpose; and

Particularly significant is the evidence that the 1st Plaintiff repeatedly travelled from Kuching, Sarawak to Kuala Lumpur over many years in attempts to resolve matters concerning the land.

D. The Defendants’ Position

The Defendants contended inter alia that:

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

(b) the proposed valuation methodology would result in unjust enrichment;

(c) certain delays were attributable to caveats and planning difficulties; and the Plaintiffs could not properly claim hypothetical development profits.

The Court accepts that these objections are relevant contextual considerations.

However, the Court is not persuaded that these objections extinguish the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to substantial damages altogether.

The Court remains satisfied that:

(a) prolonged deprivation;

(b) exclusion from beneficial enjoyment;

(d) concealment and non-disclosure have already been conclusively established in the liability proceedings. 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;

(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) the Plaintiffs were effectively denied meaningful participation in decisions affecting land in which they possessed beneficial interests; and

However, the Court must also ensure that:

(a) the award remains proportionate;

(b) speculative future-development assumptions are avoided; and

Having considered:

(a) the valuation materials;

(b) the prolonged duration involved;

(d) the Scott Schedule; and

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

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM550,000.00 as compensatory damages against the Defendants jointly and severally.

The Court considers this figure appropriate because it:

(a) meaningfully recognises the Plaintiffs’ prolonged deprivation;

(b) reflects the seriousness of the established misconduct;

(d) avoids speculative or windfall recovery. 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;

(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 by the Plaintiffs; and

(b) the prolonged uncertainty and exclusion caused substantial frustration and emotional distress over many years.

The Plaintiffs’ reliance on authorities such as Maraputra V Kumagai [1999] MLJU 679, Mayban Trustees Bhd V CIMB Bank Bhd And Other Appeals [2012] 6 MLJ 354, and FGV Holdings Bhd (Formerly Known As ‘Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd’) V Mohd Isa bin Abdul Samad & Anor [2024] 12 MLJ 503 provides meaningful support for recognising the seriousness of prolonged fiduciary misconduct.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM350,000.00 as aggravated damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

The Court considers this figure substantial but proportionate in light of:

(a) the oppressive nature of the conduct;

(b) the prolonged duration involved; and

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: RM200,000.00 as exemplary damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

The Court considers this figure sufficient to reflect:

(a) punishment;

(b) deterrence; and

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.

The Court further recognises that the Plaintiffs were deprived for decades of the intended benefit of the sub-lot scheme and excluded from material dealings affecting land in which they possessed beneficial interests.

Nevertheless, the assessment of damages must remain:

(a) principled;

(b) proportionate;

(d) free from speculative future-development reconstruction.

The Court must therefore balance the need to provide meaningful relief for the established wrongdoing against the equally important requirement that damages should not be founded upon conjectural or hypothetical future-development profits incapable of precise proof.

Having considered the totality of the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that the above awards appropriately achieve that balance.

In the circumstances, the Court orders as follows:

(a) Compensatory Damages RM550,000.00 against the Defendants jointly and severally.

(b) Aggravated Damages RM350,000.00 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

(d) Costs Costs of RM20,000.00 to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants (RM10,000.00 each)

(e) Interest Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the judgment sum 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 : Mohd Nizam Bin Yahya & Nurluqman Messrs. Faid Naraendran & Partners 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-208-04/2019
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 – Breach of trust – Breach of fiduciary duty – Fraud – Concealment and non-disclosure – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership – Frustration of intended family-home purpose – Moderated judicial assessment – Rejection of speculative valuation methodology. Damages – Aggravated damages – Breach of trust – Abuse of fiduciary obligations – Concealment – Non-disclosure – Oppressive conduct – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial rights – Whether aggravated damages formed part of the Court's assessment of the consequences of the established wrongdoing. Damages – Exemplary damages – Liability judgment expressly directing exemplary damages to be assessed – Punitive and deterrent award – Proportionality – Avoidance of duplication with compensatory and aggravated damages. Equity – Trusts – Beneficial ownership – Fiduciary obligations – Wrongful dealings with trust property – Failure to account – Assessment of damages arising from breach of trust and fiduciary duty. Evidence – Valuation evidence – Scott Schedule – Market valuation – Equitable compensation – Speculative future development value – Whether valuation evidence should be adopted as the mathematical measure of recoverable damages – Judicial moderation. 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: c44367d8-cc5e-45de-8899-b330b9635a12

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 – Breach of trust – Breach of fiduciary duty – Fraud – Concealment and non-disclosure – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership – Frustration of intended family-home purpose – Moderated judicial assessment – Rejection of speculative valuation methodology. Damages – Aggravated damages – Breach of trust – Abuse of fiduciary obligations – Concealment – Non-disclosure – Oppressive conduct – Prolonged deprivation of beneficial rights – Whether aggravated damages formed part of the Court's assessment of the consequences of the established wrongdoing. Damages – Exemplary damages – Liability judgment expressly directing exemplary damages to be assessed – Punitive and deterrent award – Proportionality – Avoidance of duplication with compensatory and aggravated damages. Equity – Trusts – Beneficial ownership – Fiduciary obligations – Wrongful dealings with trust property – Failure to account – Assessment of damages arising from breach of trust and fiduciary duty. Evidence – Valuation evidence – Scott Schedule – Market valuation – Equitable compensation – Speculative future development value – Whether valuation evidence should be adopted as the mathematical measure of recoverable damages – Judicial moderation. 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. ) SUHIRTHARATNAM A/L K. KULARATNAM - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
2. ) SHARMINI A/P KANAGASABAI - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
1. ) KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BHD - defendant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L V. SUBRAMANIAM - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Suhirtharatnam A/L K. Kularatnam v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Bhd (WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Antara

Dan

A. Introduction

B. The Applicable Principles

C. The Plaintiffs’ Position

D. The Defendants’ Position

Something wrong on this page?

Suhirtharatnam A/L K. Kularatnam v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Bhd (WA-22NCvC-208-04/2019)

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Antara

Dan

A. Introduction

B. The Applicable Principles

C. The Plaintiffs’ Position

D. The Defendants’ Position

Something wrong on this page?