Krishnasamy A/L Manjiny v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Bhd (WA-22NCvC-567-10/2017)

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

This matter comes before this Court for the assessment of damages following the judgment delivered on 15.7.2024 after the completion of a full trial involving this suit and several related actions. 03/07/2026 16:11:33

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

breach of trust;

breach of fiduciary duties;

equitable fraud;

concealment and non-disclosure;

wrongful dealings concerning the land in dispute; and;

disregard of the beneficial interests of the sub-lot purchasers.

The Court further recognised that the Plaintiff was a beneficial owner of the land in dispute notwithstanding that the legal title remained registered in the name of the 1st Defendant.

Accordingly, the issue before this Court at the present stage is not liability. Liability has already been conclusively determined. The present proceedings concern only the appropriate assessment and quantification of damages arising from the wrongdoing already established.

The evidence and findings made during the trial established that the Plaintiff participated in the sub-lot scheme on the understanding and representation that the land would eventually be subdivided and developed into bungalow lots.

The Court found that the Plaintiff possessed beneficial interests in the land and that the Defendants had acted in disregard of those interests through dealings undertaken without proper disclosure and without informed consent of the sub-lot purchasers.

The liability findings further established that:

the Defendants entered into arrangements affecting the land without properly informing the purchasers;

the Plaintiff and other beneficial owners were kept uninformed for prolonged periods;

the Defendants failed to properly account for matters relating to the land; and

the Plaintiff was deprived of the intended benefit of the sub-lot scheme over many years.

The Court also takes cognisance of the findings made in relation to the conduct of the Defendants, particularly involving prolonged concealment, abuse of trust and disregard of fiduciary obligations.

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

Whilst the Court must ensure that the Plaintiff receives 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 Plaintiff as automatically entitled to:

the full present market value of a completed bungalow development;

projected developer profits; or

accumulated hypothetical rental returns over several decades.

The Court must bear in mind that:

the intended development never materialised;

no individual title was ever issued to the Plaintiff; and

the future development trajectory of the land remained contingent and uncertain.

The Court therefore declines to adopt a purely mathematical valuation methodology based on speculative future development gains or projected rental yields.

Nevertheless, the rejection of speculative valuation does not diminish:

the seriousness of the wrongdoing already established;

the Plaintiff’s beneficial proprietary interest;

the prolonged deprivation suffered; or

The oppressive nature of the Defendants’ conduct. D. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

The Plaintiff contended that he had suffered substantial loss arising from:

prolonged deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the land;

frustration of the intended bungalow-lot scheme;

loss of opportunity to utilise the land;

emotional hardship and distress; and

oppressive conduct by the Defendants over a prolonged duration.

The Plaintiff further relied on the valuation materials and the Scott Schedule in support of substantial claims for general and exemplary damages.

The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that:

many of the claims advanced were speculative in nature;

loss of rental and loss of use were not specifically pleaded;

the Plaintiff could not claim hypothetical development profits; and

the proposed valuation methodology would result in unjust enrichment.

The Defendants further argued that damages must remain confined to properly pleaded and proven loss and that the Plaintiff’s claims were excessive and unsupported by precise evidence.

The Court accepts that the Plaintiff suffered genuine and substantial deprivation arising from:

the loss of beneficial enjoyment of the land;

prolonged deprivation of the intended benefit under the sub-lot scheme;

frustration of the intended bungalow-lot development;

exclusion from material dealings concerning the land; and

wrongful interference with the Plaintiff’s beneficial proprietary interests.

The Court further notes that the Plaintiff gave compelling evidence concerning:

his longstanding expectation of utilising the land;

his intention to build a family home;

his family circumstances; and

the prolonged hardship and frustration suffered over many years.

The Court is satisfied that substantial general damages are warranted.

However, the Court must also ensure that the award remains proportionate and does not amount to speculative future-development compensation.

Having considered:

the Scott Schedule;

the valuation materials;

the duration of deprivation;

the seriousness of the wrongdoing established; and

the totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that a substantial but moderated award of general damages is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM450,000.00 as general and compensatory damages against the Defendants jointly and severally.

The Court considers this figure appropriate to reflect:

the Plaintiff’s beneficial interests;

the prolonged deprivation suffered; and

the seriousness of the wrongful conduct established, while at the same time avoiding speculative or windfall recovery. F. AGGRAVATED DAMAGES

The Court is satisfied that aggravated damages are warranted.

The findings already made reveal conduct involving:

prolonged concealment;

abuse of trust and confidence;

disregard of fiduciary obligations;

manipulative conduct; and

prolonged exclusion of the Plaintiff from dealings concerning the land.

The Court further accepts that the manner in which the wrongdoing was committed aggravated the injury suffered by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff endured prolonged frustration, anxiety, uncertainty and emotional distress over many years arising from the Defendants’ conduct.

The Court therefore considers an award of aggravated damages justified.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM300,000.00 as aggravated damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

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

the oppressive nature of the conduct;

the prolonged duration involved; and

the fiduciary dimensions of the wrongdoing established. G. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The Plaintiff further seeks exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are exceptional in nature and must be awarded cautiously and proportionately.

Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that the conduct established against the Defendants goes beyond mere negligence or technical breach.

The findings already made include:

deliberate concealment;

knowing disregard of beneficial ownership;

abuse of fiduciary position; and

dealings adverse to the Plaintiff’s interests without informed consent.

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

However, the Court must also ensure moderation and avoid duplication with aggravated damages.

Accordingly, the Court awards: RM150,000.00 as exemplary damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

The Court considers this figure sufficient to reflect:

punishment;

deterrence; and

the Court’s disapproval of the conduct established, without becoming excessive. H. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The Court is fully cognisant that the Plaintiff suffered genuine and substantial injustice arising from the Defendants’ breaches of trust, fiduciary misconduct, concealment and wrongful dealings over a prolonged period of time.

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

Nevertheless, the assessment of damages must remain principled, proportionate and compensatory in nature.

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 speculative future profits or hypothetical development outcomes incapable of precise proof.

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

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

General / Compensatory Damages RM450,000.00 against the Defendants jointly and severally.

Aggravated Damages RM300,000.00 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

Exemplary Damages RM150,000.00 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

Costs Costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendant. (RM5,000.00 each)

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:

breach of trust;

breach of fiduciary obligations;

concealment and non-disclosure;

fraud and wrongful dealings;

prolonged deprivation of beneficial ownership rights; and

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:

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.

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.

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 : Jude Peters & Dinesh Kannen Messrs. Peters Chambers Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Rajenthira Kumar & 1 & 2 (all suits)