Rajendran A/L Rasamanickam v Koperasi Pekerja Jaya Bhd (WA-22NCvC-68-01/2018)

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

GOPALAKRISHNAN A/L V SUBRAMANIAM [NO. K/P: 390127-01-5231]

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 judgment delivered on 15.7.2024 in 03/07/2026 16:12:29 WA-22NCvC-68-01/2018 Kand. 218 favour of the Plaintiff after a full trial conducted together with four related suits.

In the liability judgment, the learned trial Judge made extensive findings against the Defendants, inter alia, in relation to:

breach of trust;

breach of fiduciary duties;

equitable fraud;

conspiracy to defraud;

deceitful and unconscionable conduct; and

wrongful dealings concerning the impugned land.

The learned trial Judge further recognised and accepted that the sub-lot purchasers, including the Plaintiff, possessed beneficial interests in the impugned land, whilst the 1st Defendant held the legal title as a bare trustee.

Accordingly, the issue before this Court at this stage is not liability. Liability has already been conclusively determined. The sole question remaining is the appropriate assessment and quantification of damages flowing from the established wrongdoing.

The liability judgment established that the Plaintiff had participated in the sub-lot scheme devised in relation to the impugned land on the representation and understanding that the land would eventually be converted, subdivided and developed into bungalow-sized lots.

The learned trial Judge found that the Plaintiff and the other sub-lot purchasers remained beneficial owners of their respective undivided shares in the impugned land notwithstanding the registration of the land in the name of the 1st Defendant.

The findings further established that:

the Defendants entered into the JVA and subsequent Supplemental JVA without the informed approval of the sub-lot purchasers;

the dealings with the impugned land were concealed from the sub-lot purchasers;

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

the Defendants failed to account for acquisition compensation and proceeds connected to the land; and

the Defendants acted in disregard of the Plaintiff’s acknowledged beneficial interests.

The liability judgment also contained strong findings concerning the conduct of the Defendants, particularly D1 and D2, including findings relating to dishonesty, concealment, manipulation, and abuse of fiduciary position over an extended period of time.

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.

It is well-established that damages are intended to compensate for actual loss suffered and not to confer a windfall upon a successful litigant.

In the present case, the Court must therefore carefully distinguish between:

compensable deprivation of beneficial rights;

speculative future development gains;

aggravated damages arising from the manner of wrongdoing; and

exemplary damages intended to punish oppressive or unconscionable conduct.

The Court must further bear in mind that this is not a conventional contractual claim involving a completed housing development with issued individual titles.

Although the Plaintiff undeniably suffered serious legal wrongs, the subdivision and development envisaged under the original scheme never materialised. No individual title was ever issued to the Plaintiff, and the future development trajectory of the impugned land remained contingent and uncertain over the decades.

Consequently, the Court is unable to accept any approach that would automatically equate the Plaintiff’s loss with the full hypothetical present market value of a completed bungalow lot or speculative future development profits.

The Plaintiff relied substantially on valuation evidence, including the valuation report prepared by Jordan Lee & Jaafar, as well as references to government valuation figures.

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants had attempted to dispose of the impugned land at a gross undervalue and that the market value of the land far exceeded the consideration reflected in the impugned dealings.

The Court accepts that the valuation evidence is relevant in demonstrating:

the seriousness of the impugned transactions;

the gravity of the fiduciary breaches; and

the extent to which the Defendants acted contrary to the Plaintiff’s beneficial interests.

However, the Court does not accept that such valuation evidence should be mechanically adopted as the direct mathematical measure of the Plaintiff’s recoverable loss.

The valuation of the entire land or its theoretical development potential does not automatically translate into recoverable damages equivalent to speculative future development profits.

The Court must therefore approach the valuation evidence with caution and moderation.

Having considered the totality of the evidence and the findings already made at the liability stage, the Court is satisfied 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;

the frustration of the intended bungalow-lot development;

wrongful interference with the Plaintiff’s equitable interests; and

prolonged uncertainty and exclusion from dealings concerning the land.

The Court further accepts that the Plaintiff was effectively kept in the dark concerning material dealings affecting the impugned land over a prolonged period extending decades.

The Court is therefore satisfied that substantial compensatory and equitable damages are warranted.

However, the Court must also ensure that the award remains proportionate and anchored to legally recoverable loss rather than speculative future gains.

In the circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to award substantial but moderated compensatory damages reflective of:

the Plaintiff’s beneficial proprietary interests;

the prolonged deprivation suffered; and

the seriousness of the Defendants’ misconduct. F. AGGRAVATED DAMAGES

The Court is satisfied that aggravated damages are warranted in the present case.

The liability findings reveal conduct involving:

prolonged concealment;

abuse of trust and confidence;

disregard of fiduciary obligations;

lack of transparency;

manipulative conduct; and

oppressive handling of the Plaintiff’s interests.

The manner in which the wrongdoing was committed aggravated the injury suffered by the Plaintiff.

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

The Court therefore considers an award of aggravated damages appropriate.

The Plaintiff also 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 D1 and D2 goes beyond mere negligence or technical breach.

The findings made in the liability judgment include:

deliberate concealment;

knowing disregard of beneficial ownership;

abuse of fiduciary position;

dealings adverse to the Plaintiff’s interests without informed consent; and

attempts to proceed with transactions affecting the land notwithstanding the acknowledged interests of the sub-lot purchasers.

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

However, the Court must also avoid duplication between aggravated damages and exemplary damages and must ensure proportionality in the overall award.

In the circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to award moderated exemplary damages against D1 and D2.

As against D3, the Court takes cognisance that the findings against D3, whilst serious, must still be distinguished from the direct fiduciary obligations borne by D1 and D2 toward the Plaintiff and the sub-lot purchasers. H. CLAIM RELATING TO ACQUISITION COMPENSATION AND

The Plaintiff further relies on allegations relating to:

compulsory acquisition compensation; and

proceeds derived from the impugned land.

The liability judgment recognised the existence of issues concerning non-disclosure and failure to account in relation to those matters.

However, in assessing monetary recovery under these heads, the Court must still be satisfied that sufficient evidential foundation exists to support precise quantification.

The Court is not prepared to engage in speculative accounting exercise unsupported by sufficiently reliable documentary proof.

Accordingly, whilst the Court takes these matters into account contextually in assessing the overall gravity of the wrongdoing, the Court declines to make separate speculative quantified awards unsupported by satisfactory evidential precision. I.

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 was excluded from material dealings affecting land in which the Plaintiff possessed beneficial interests.

Nevertheless, the Court must ensure that the assessment of damages remains 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 carefully considered the evidence, the valuation materials, the Scott Schedule, the written submissions of parties, the authorities cited, and the totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that substantial but moderated damages ought to be awarded.

In the circumstances, the Court orders as follows:

Compensatory / Equitable Damages RM350,000.00 against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally.

Aggravated Damages Aggravated damages in the sum of RM 100,000 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally. .

Exemplary Damages Exemplary damages in the sum of RM 150,000 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally

Costs Costs of RM15,000.00 to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants (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. J. 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.” K. 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)