Ba Urus Bina ( M ) Sdn Bhd v XXXX (JA-22NCVC-118-06/2016)

JAMIL BIN IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 580403-05-5377)

MUTHANNA BIN JAMIL (No. K/P: 880328-05-5549) … DEFENDANTS S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff filed this application in Enclosure 88 (“Encl 88”) for assessment of damages to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under an order of this Court dated 31.07.2018, where the trial judge found the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff for negligence. BACKGROUND FACTS [2] The trial judge found for the Plaintiff on 31.07.2018 after a full trial and allowed the Plaintiff’s claim as in the Amended Statement of Claim but ordered damages payable by the Defendants to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar. [3] The Plaintiff prayed for the following orders in it’s Amended Statement of Claim;

Defendan membayar kepada Plaintif RM2,337,926.00 iaitu kos tambahan untuk kerja-kerja tanah sebenar yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif;

(ii) Defendan mengembalikan yuran yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif sebanyak RM351,000.00 untuk kerja-kerja terlebih bayar/yang gagal disiapkan tetapi telah dibayar kepada Defendan; S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug

(iii) Membayar ganti rugi am yang akan ditaksirkan;

(iv) Membayar ganti rugi teladan yang akan ditaksirkan. [4] It is noted that even though evidence was led during the trial to prove the Special Damages claimed by the Plaintiff under paragraph 11(i) of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Court ordered damages claimed in paragraph II (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar. [5] The Defendants appealed against the decision of the High Court after trial. The Court of Appeal (“COA”) on 30.09.2019 affirmed the decision of the High Court on liability but set-aside the order of the High Court on exemplary damages. The COA further ordered assessment of damages claimed by the Plaintiff under paragraph II (i),

(ii) and (iii) to be carried out by the Judge. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES BY THIS COURT [6] During the assessment of damages before this Court, the Plaintiff called one (1) witness and the Defendant also called one (1) witness. [7] The Plaintiff’s claim for additional costs incurred amounting to RM2,337,926.00 falls under the category of special damages. [8] For this head of claim, the trial judge made the following findings in his grounds of judgments; S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug

Oleh yang demikian, kos sebenar kerja tanah yang perlu ditanggung oleh Plaintif adalah sebanyak RM2,462,000.00 iaitu RM2,337,926.00 lebih daripada kos asal yang dikira berdasarkan P2 yang dikira dan dibuat oleh Defendan-Defendan.

Mahkamah mendapati Defendan-Defendan telah menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami kerugian apabila mereka melakukan kesilapan dan/atau kecuaian dalam mengira anggaran kerja tanah di dalam P2 sehingga menyebabkan nilai harga kontrak adalah lebih rendah dari yang sepatutnya.

Berdasarkan apa yang dinyatakan di atas, mahkamah berpuas hati Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya di atas kadar kebarangkalian bahawa Plaintif telah mengalami kos tambahan untuk kerja-kerja tanah sebenar yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif sebanyak RM2,337.926.00.

Setelah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan dalam kes ini, mahkamah telah berpuas hati Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutan ini dan telah membenarkannya. [9] Since the learned trial Judge has found that the Special Damages suffered by the Plaintiff is in the sum of RM2,337,926.00 on a balance of probabilities, there is nothing more for me to assess on the issue of quantum of Special Damages. [10] (a) With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for other heads of damages, the COA had set-aside the award of Exemplary Damages claimed under paragraph II (iv) of the Amended statement of Claim. S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for General Damages the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence of General Damages nor did it submit on the issue of quantum to be paid under this head. Thus, I did not make any award under this head.

That only leaves the quantum of Special Damages to be awarded. However, since the trial Judge had found that the Plaintiff had in fact successfully proven that the Plaintiff had suffered the special damages claimed under paragraph II (i) of the Amended Statement of Claim (see the trial Judge’s findings in paragraph 49, 50 and 59 of his grounds), during the trial of the original action, there is nothing more for me to assess in terms of the quantum to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under the head of Special Damages. Therefore, I order the Defendants to pay the full sum of RM2,337,926.00 to the Plaintiff. [11] For the reasons aforesaid, I award the Plaintiff Special Damages in the sum of RM2,337,926.00 and costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocator, to be paid by the Defendants. Dated 15 December 2023 …………t.t……………….. Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: EN ZUL SADDIQIN SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: TETUAN MAISHI’AH, JALIDAH & ASSOCIATES COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: DATO’ HANIF HASSAN SOLICITORS FOR THE DEFENDANTS: TETUAN HANIF HASSAN & CO Cases Referred to: ➢ Legislation Referred to: ➢