Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd (WA-12BNCvC-58-05/2024)

This was an appeal by the Appellant against the decision by the learned Sessions Court Judge (‘SCJ’) after a hearing on the assessment of damages whereby the SCJ had awarded the sum of RM982,700.00 with costs of RM3,000.00 to the Respondent.

After having considered the Record of Appeal and the submissions by the parties, I had allowed part of the appeal.

Dissatisfied, the Respondent has appealed against my decision. These are my full grounds for the decision.

Henceforth, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court.

The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at 568-8-25 (Level 8), Kompleks Mutiara, Batu 3½ Jalan Ipoh, 51200 Kuala Lumpur and business address at Unit G-08, Ground Floor, Wisma Badan Peguam Malaysia, 2 Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur.

The Plaintiff is the registered and beneficial owner of a Land Rover Range Rover (Registration No.: WYG1), Chassis No.: SALGA2EE3EA189703 and Engine No. 14052804350508PS (‘Range Rover’).

The Defendant is an individual who was given permission by the Plaintiff to use the Range Rover. The permission was revoked vide a letter dated 29.10.2019 and the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant return possession of the Range Rover to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was for tort of detinue for the Defendant’s refusal to return the Range Rover to the Plaintiff. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, apart from the usual prayer for interest and costs, were as follows:

return of the Range Rover to the Plaintiff;

alternatively, the Defendant to pay damages to the Plaintiff based on the Range Rover’s market value at the date of judgment; and

damages for wrongful detention of the Range Rover from the date of the Defendant’s refusal to return the same i.e.

5.11.2019 until the date of its return to the Plaintiff, or full payment of the Range Rover’s value as assessed by the Court.

The Plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment to be entered against the Defendant for the reliefs as stated in subparagraphs 8(a) and (c) above with interest and costs and the application was allowed by the SCJ on 17.12.2021.

Following the order for summary judgment, an assessment of damages was conducted by way of affidavit evidence and the SCJ had, on 7.5.2024, made the following orders:

damages for loss of use calculated at the rate of RM700.00 per day from 5.11.2019 until 23.6.2023 (1,332 days) totalling to a sum of RM932,400.00;

the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff RM300.00 being the summon, fine or compound issued by the authorities, caused by the Defendant while the Range Rover was in the Defendant’s wrongful detention;

punitive damages of RM50,000.00 to be paid by the

interest at the rate of 5% per annum for the damages awarded from the date of filing of the Writ (12.7.2021) until full settlement; and

costs of RM3,000.00.

Although the Notice of Appeal dated 16.5.2024 states that the Defendant’s appeal is against the entire decision by the SCJ in assessing the amount of damages that has to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM982,700.00 with costs of RM3,000.00, based on the Defendant’s written submission in this Court, his grievance is confined to the SCJ’s decision in finding that the Plaintiff is –

entitled to RM932,400.00 (RM700.00 per day x 1,332 days) as loss of use from 5.11.2019 – 23.6.2023; and

to be paid RM50,000.00 for exemplary damages.

As this is an appeal against the decision of the SCJ for assessment of damages, and based on the case authorities submitted by the learned counsels for the parties who appeared for the appeal, the legal principles may be summarised as follows:

the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact and the amount of damages. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving the fact of damage but not its amount, he would be entitled to an award of nominal damages only (see Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook Kum [1969] 1 MLJ 99);

the court should award fair compensation based on cogent evidence and should not descend into a domain of speculation (see Inas Faiqah Bt Mohd Helmi (An Infant Suing Through Her Father And Next Friend, Mohd Helmi Bin Abdul Aziz) v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 2 MLJ 1);

a court in assessing the quantum of damages to be awarded exercises discretionary jurisdiction. It is mainly a matter of opinion or of impression that differences of assessment are to be expected. The quantification of damages cannot be assessed with precision or mathematical certainty (see Amar Singh v Chin Kiew [1960] 1 MLJ 77 and Majlis Amanah Rakyat & Muhamad Ismail v Mat Nawi Awang [2017] 1 MLJ 500);

to justify reversing the findings of the trial judge on the amount of damages, the appellate court should be convinced that the judge acted on some wrong principle of law or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled (see Flint v Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354, Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284 and Voo Nyuk Fah & Anor v Lam Yat Kheong & Anor [2012] 5 CLJ 229); and

the court should not be inclined to reverse the finding of the trial judge as to the amount of damages. The findings of the trial judge should not be reversed merely because the appellate court might be of the opinion that if it had tried the case at first instance, a lesser sum would have been awarded (see Goo Sing Kar v Dato Lim Ah Chap & Ors [2013] 3 MLJ 374).

In determining this instant appeal, I was guided by the above well-entrenched legal principles. The Grounds of Appeal 1st Ground: Whether the SCJ made an error of law in finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of RM932,400.00

For ease of reference, the SCJ’s reasoning in her Grounds of Judgement (‘GoJ’) in respect of her findings is re-produced below: “[24] Mahkamah ini setelah meneliti segala hujahan yang diberikan khususnya terhadap kesulitan yang dihadapi oleh pihak Plaintif akibat daripada tahanan secara salah tersebut berpandangan jumlah yang sewajarnya, adil dan munasabah seharusnya diberikan kepada Plaintif. [25] Tempoh kehilangan penggunaan kenderaan Range Rover tersebut selama 1,332 hari merupakan satu tempoh yang panjang dan ini sudah tentu mendatangkan kesulitan yang ketara di pihak Plaintif. [26] Oleh itu disebabkan Plaintif terpaksa menyewa sebuah kenderaan lain yang serupa, Defendan sewajarnya kini dipertanggungjawabkan untuk membayar sewa yang munasabah untuk kenderaan tersebut. [30] Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip di atas, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa penentuan jumlah ganti rugi bagi kehilangan penggunaan Range Rover tersebut harus ditaksirkan dengan berdasarkan kadar kos sewaan kereta harian berdasarkan model yang sama. [31] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan pihak Plaintif bahawa asas kiraan secara harian adalah lebih wajar digunakan kerana jumlah Gantirugi yang diberikan adalah berdasarkan jumlah harian kehilangan penggunaan kenderaan tersebut. [32] Dalam memutuskan perkara ini, Mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju dengan hujahan Defendan bahawa hanya jumlah ganti rugi norminal sahaja diberikan kepada Plaintif. [33] Jumlah tersebut tidak wajar diberikan kerana secara jelas Defendan telah menahan kenderaan tersebut secara salah dan Plaintif telah membuktikan bahawa mereka terpaksa dan perlu untuk menyewa sebuah kenderaan lain yang sama jenisnya. [34] Fakta bahawa Plaintif ada dua (2) atau (3) kenderaan lain adalah tidak relevan untuk dinilaikan kerana Plaintif sewajarnya diberikan kebebasan untuk menikmati setiap kenderaan yang berada dalam milikannya untuk kegunaan yang telah ditentukan. [35] Tindakan menolak tuntutan Gantirugi kehilangan penggunaan hanya kerana Plaintif ada kenderaan lain pada hemat Mahkamah adalah satu penghakiman yang tidak adil untuk diberikan. [36] Walaubagaimanapun, Mahkamah ini mengambil maklum bahawa kadar harian akan menjadi lebih murah jika sewaan itu dibuat untuk tempoh yang panjang berbandjng dengan sewaan harian untuk jangkamasa harian atau tempoh yang pendek. [37] Memandangkan tempoh sewaan dan kehilangan penggunaan dalam kes ini adalah 1,332 hari, jumlah yang lebih rendah sewajarnya diberikan. [38] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan jumlah RM700.00 sehari wajar diberikan kepada Plaintif sebagai awad kehilangan penggunaan kenderaan tersebut. … [57] Mahkamah selepas membaca Lampiran 109 (Notis Janji Temu Penaksiran Gantirugi), Afidavit Sokongan di Lampiran 110, Afidavit-afidavit Jawapan yang difailkan, dan selepas meneliti Hujahan Bertulis pihak-pihak dan meneliti eksibit-eksibit yang difailkan, Mahkamah dengan ini memutuskan seperti berikut:- Tuntutan ganti rugi Plaintif :- a) Kehilangan penggunaan kenderaan (loss of use) sepanjang tempoh penahanan salah Defendan; dari 5.11.2019 sehingga 23.6.2023 berjumlah (1,332 hari) – DIBENARKAN RM 700 sehari x 1,332 hari = RM932,400.00. …”.

The gist of the Defendant’s submission as regards the 1st ground of appeal is that the SCJ had erred or misdirected by –

relying on an entirely false factual premise that the Plaintiff actually rented another car;

failing to explain how she mathematically arrived at RM700.00 per day rental rate as both parties did not plead on this point; and

failing to consider the Defendant’s evidence of the quotation by a car rental company for an equivalent vehicle at RM167.00 per day. Based on this sum, which would give a total amount of RM218,000.00 for a period of use of 1,332 days, the assessment would be fair and reasonable. To further support the contention that this is a fair figure is the fact that the Plaintiff eventually sold the car for the sum of RM220,000.00.

The Plaintiff countered that the SCJ did not act on any wrong principle of law and there was no erroneous estimate of damages made by the SCJ who had properly exercised her discretionary jurisdiction in assessing the quantum of damages.

After due consideration of the juxtaposed submissions of the parties, I accepted the Plaintiff’s submission, on the case authorities of Strand Electric & Engineering v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 1 All ER 796, Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 1 WLR 713, Othman bin Ali v Bukit Lenang Development [2016] 3 MLJ 708 and Tian Li Sdn Bhd v Rentak Mahir [2017] MLJU 2343, that the measure of damages for wrongful detention of the Range Rover is that the Defendant must pay a fair rental value or reasonable hire for it.

Further, it is my finding that, in arriving at the sum of RM700.00 per day for loss of use, the SCJ did not provide any analysis or justification. No base figure was provided by the SCJ so that any deduction can be made as was suggested in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the GoJ.

In addition, the SCJ failed to consider the quotation obtained by the Defendant from a car rental company for a similar Range Rover model at RM5,000.00 per month or RM167.00 per day. If the rate of RM5,000 per month is used, the quantum of damages would be in the range of RM218,000.00 for a period of use of 1,332 days. The Defendant argued that, if the SCJ was to award any quantum at all, the sum of RM218,000.00 would be a fair and reasonable figure, especially when it is almost equivalent to the sale price of the Range Rover by the Plaintiff at RM220,000.00.

In the Defendant’s affidavit, an explanation was provided as to why he could not obtain a quotation for the exact Range Rover model and year of manufacture (2014), namely that the car rental companies do not, or rarely, rent a Range Rover made in 2014 as such model is already obsolete and no longer a popular choice among clients (see too, subparagraph 15.3 of the Defendant’s Written Submissions).

Therefore, I am of the considered view that there was an appealable error by the SCJ and the sum of RM932,400.00 should be substituted with an order for the sum of RM220,000.00. The calculation is as follows: 1,332 days ÷ 30 or 31 days = 42.97 or 44.4 months x RM5,000.00 per month = RM214,850.00 or RM222,000.00 RM222,000.00 – RM214,850.00 = RM7,150.00 RM7,150.00 ÷ 2 = RM3,575.00 RM214,850.00 + RM3,575.00 =RM218,425.00, which is rounded up to RM220,000.00. 2nd Ground: Whether the SCJ made an error of law in awarding the sum of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages

The SCJ’s analysis which led to the award of RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages can be found in the following paragraphs in the GoJ: “[49] Defendan telah membantah pemberian gantirugi ini kerana Plaintif dikatakan telah gagal untuk membuktikan apakah “tingkah laku Defendan” yang mewajarkan gantirugi Plaintif. Ini kerana Defendan telah mematuhi perintah Mahkamah untuk memulangkan kenderaan tersebut kepada Plaintif tanpa sebarang kelewatan atau bantahan. [50] Walaubagaimanapun, Mahkamah setelah membuat penelitian terhadap segala keterangan yang ada bersetuju untuk membenarkan awad Ganti Rugi Plaintif sebanyak RM50,000.00 kepada Defendan. [51] Mahkamah ini sedia maklum bahawa Defendan telah mematuhi perintah Mahkamah untuk menyerahkan kembali kenderaan tersebut. Akan tetapi, pegangan salah Defendan terhadap kenderaan tersebut adalah untuk tempoh yang terlalu lama. Defendan hanya menyerahkan kenderaan tersebut setelah diarahkan oleh Mahkamah. [52] Dalam tempoh tahanan salah itu, Plaintif telah mengalami kesukaran yang tidak wajar untuk mendapatkan kenderaaan ganti. Walaupun gantirugi kehilangan penggunaaan telah diberikan, Mahkamah ini berpandapat Gantirugi berbentuk pengajaran wajar juga diberikan kepada Defendan di atas kesusahan yang berpunca dari pihak mereka. [53] Mahkamah dalam membenarkan Ganti Rugi ini telah menggunakan kuasa budibicaranya berdasarkan fakta kes yang sedia ada. [54] Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Plaintif bahawa kelakuan dan tingkah laku Defendan adalah pertimbangan yang relevan dalam pengiraan ganti rugi Plaintif iaitu suatu ganti rugi teladan. … [56] Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan dapatan dan prinsip undang-undang di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat Plaintif layak untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi ini dan jumlah RM50,000.00 adalah wajar dan munasabah untuk diberikan.”.

The Plaintiff defended the SCJ’s decision by submitting that the SCJ had considered four other heads of damages, namely, property damage and costs for vehicle repairs and servicing; summons, fines or compounds imposed due to the Defendant’s actions; loss of business opportunity; and exemplary damages. However, after evaluating each of these claims by applying the correct legal principles and in the exercise of proper judicial discretion, the SCJ only allowed the claims for summons imposed and exemplary damages (see paragraphs 49 to 56 of the GoJ).

Upon deliberation of the Record of Appeal and the respective submissions of the parties, I was inclined to agree with the submission by the Defendant that the SCJ made an erroneous award of exemplary damages for the following reasons:

the SCJ reasoned that the Range Rover was withheld for a long period and the Plaintiff had to obtain a car to replace the Range Rover. However, the grounds given by the SCJ in making the award for the sum of RM50,000.00 are not mentioned anywhere in the Affidavit In Support. The Plaintiff merely averred that exemplary damages is warranted “in order to prevent similar wrongdoings by the defendant in the future”;

even if the Plaintiff had made affirmations pertaining to the withholding of the Range Rover for a long period and the necessity for it to obtain a replacement car, this would relate to aggravated damages, and not to exemplary damages; and

exemplary damages relate to the Defendant’s conduct which is so egregious that it warrants an order for exemplary damages. In this case, there was simply no evidence of any contumelious conduct by the Defendant which warrants further punishment beyond the granting of damages for loss of use.

In view of the above, the appeal against this part of the SCJ’s decision was allowed.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Appellant’s appeal was allowed in part whereby the total amount which shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent is RM220,300.00 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of the Writ and Statement of Claim until full payment, with costs of

The Respondent was ordered to pay costs of RM5,000.00 to the Appellant for the appeal, subject to allocatur. Dated: 8 August 2025 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA (NCvC2) KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for the Appellant : Lim Wei Jiet Messrs. Lim Wei Jiet Counsels for the Respondent : Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse (Hannah Yeoh & Peter Siew with her)