S.P Yam Huat Sdn Bhd v Ch'Ng Kim Chye dan Ch'Ng Kim Hock (24NCVC-2-01/2017)

CH’NG KIM CHYE AND CH’NG KIM HOCK (Trading as Lam Soon Huat) [AS0111197-P]

LIM TIANG HENG @ LIM THEN SIM (NRIC No.: 501012-02-5025), WONG KYOK LIM (NRIC No.: 551003-02-5432), and 3 LIM CHEE HANG (NRIC No.: 790323-02-5907) (all three trading as HENG SIANG TRADING) (Business Registration No.: AS0160971-T)

NEO LAY HONG (NRIC No.: 630417-02-5198) (trading as NLH WAY ENTERPRISE) (Business Registration No.: AS0291800-A) --- RESPONDENTS Grounds of Order (Assessment of Damages) Introduction and Background [1] This is an application for assessment of damages (“this Application”) arising from a Trade Description Order (“TDO”) obtained by the Applicant on an ex parte basis on 22 January 2017. The TDO led to enforcement actions, including raids at the Respondents' business premises and the seizure of tobacco products. [2] This dispute arose on 22 January 2017, when the Applicant, S.P. Yam Huat Sdn. Bhd., obtained an ex parte Trade Description Order (“TDO”) from the High Court at Alor Setar. The order was sought on the basis that the Respondents had allegedly infringed the Applicant’s registered trademark (No. 2011010139) and industrial design (No. MY 15-01507-0101) in relation to tobacco products. 4 [3] Pursuant to the TDO, enforcement officers from the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism (KPDNKK) conducted raids on 15 March 2017 at the Respondents’ premises. Substantial quantities of tobacco products were seized on the allegation that they were counterfeit. Business assets were also seized, including a delivery van belonging to the Second Respondent. [4] The Respondents subsequently challenged the TDO. The order was stayed by consent on 14 August 2017, pending the disposal of the setting-aside applications. The High Court later set aside the TDO in its entirety. First as against the Second Respondent on 3 February 2020, and thereafter as against the Third and Fourth Respondents on 19 July 2021. [5] Following the setting aside of the TDO, the Respondents are now seeking damages for losses allegedly suffered during the period the order was in force. Their case is that the TDO prevented them from carrying on business in relation to the affected products and caused financial loss. [6] Through this Application, the Respondents claim damages under several heads. These include the value of seized goods which became unsaleable, loss of business profits, some exceeding RM1 million, and general damages for injury to goodwill said to have arisen from the enforcement actions and related publicity. 5 [7] The Applicant disputes the claims. Its primary contention is that the Respondents have failed to prove their losses. It is submitted that in the absence of audited accounts, tax records, or evidence of net profit, the claims are speculative and incapable of proper assessment. Preliminary Objection [8] The Applicant raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Respondents are procedurally barred from pursuing this assessment of damages. The Applicant argued that the Respondents failed to file their Notice of Directions within the strict one-month period required under Order 37 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012, relying on authorities that suggest mandatory compliance. In advancing this preliminary objection, the Applicant strongly contended that the time period stipulated under Order 37 Rule 1(1) of the ROC is absolutely mandatory. The Applicant relied on cases such as Low Cheng Soon v. TA Securities Sdn Bhd [2003] 1 MLJ 389 and the Federal Court decision in Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 4 CLJ 329, arguing that the use of the word 'shall' imposes a strict obligation. Consequently, the Applicant argued that the Respondents' failure to file the Notice of Directions within the one-month timeframe constitutes a fatal non-compliance that irreparably bars their right to assessment. In rebuttal, the Respondents (particularly the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent, and the Fourth Respondent) submitted that the prescribed time frame is merely directory. They rightly pointed out that the structure of Order 37 itself contains 6 'saving provisions' under Rules 1(3) and 1(7), which provide alternative mechanisms should a party fail to act within one month. Furthermore, the Respondents argued that any technical non-compliance should not extinguish a substantive right to damages and can be cured by the Court's inherent powers under Order 1A and Order 2 Rule 1 of the ROC, especially since the Applicant suffered no prejudice.

Having considered the competing arguments, I find this preliminary objection devoid of merit. Guided by the High Court decisions in Nusantara Nilam Sdn Bhd v Hicks Flat JMB [2018] 1 LNS 817 and Petra Perdana Berhad v Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra [2017] MLJU 410, the established legal principle is that the timeline prescribed under Order 37 Rule 1(1) is directory in nature, not mandatory. The rule itself contains saving provisions under Rules 1(3) and 1(7), which would be redundant if the one-month deadline was intended to be fatal. The structure of Order 37 itself further supports this interpretation. Rules 1(3) and 1(7) provide alternative mechanisms for the Court to give directions notwithstanding non-compliance with the stipulated timeline. This indicates that the Rules were never intended to impose a rigid or fatal consequence for delay. It is a trite principle of justice that a mere technical non-compliance does not operate to extinguish a party’s substantive right to claim damages conferred under a judgment. The Court retains inherent jurisdiction under Order 1A and Order 2 Rule 1 of the ROC to cure such procedural irregularities to prevent a miscarriage of justice, especially when the defaulting party's delay was not contumelious, and the opposing party has suffered no 7 actual prejudice. As such, unless clear prejudice is demonstrated, technical non-compliance should not be permitted to defeat substantive rights. As cogently explained by Khadijah Idris JC (as she then was) in Petra Perdana, if the one-month requirement under Order 37 Rule 1(1) was intended to be absolutely mandatory and fatal, the legislature would not have formulated the backup provisions in Rules 1(3) and 1(7). Parliament does not legislate in vain. The timeline is of a directory nature. A mere technical delay does not operate to extinguish the Respondents' substantive right to claim damages conferred under a judgment, especially when the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any real prejudice suffered by this delay. In the overarching interest of justice pursuant to Order 1A and Order 2 of the ROC, the preliminary objection is dismissed. The objection is therefore dismissed in limine.

The starting point in any assessment of damages in tort is the well-established principle of restitutio in integrum, which seeks to place the injured party in the position they would have occupied had the wrongful act not occurred. In addressing the substantive claims, the starting premise is the Court of Appeal's landmark ruling in Parkson Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Fazaruddin Ibrahim [2002] 4 CLJ 18. The appellate court recognised that the mechanism for obtaining an ex parte Trade Description Order (TDO) is inherently draconian, as it effectively brands a party as prima facie criminal without a prior hearing. The ratio decidendi is unequivocally clear: it is entirely consonant with justice that the person who invokes a draconian ex parte TDO, if they fail to maintain their position, must be ordered to 8 pay damages to the person who has successfully vindicated their rights. The Applicant, having obtained the wrongful TDO, is therefore liable to compensate the Respondents.

It is equally settled that the burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant. The Respondents must prove, on a balance of probabilities, the actual loss suffered. In evaluating this burden, this Court is guided by the established principles in A & F Marketing Sdn Bhd lwn. Peh Zi Xiang [2022] 1 LNS 1950 and the Federal Court decision in Datuk Mohd Ali Haji Abdul Majid & Anor vs. Public Bank Bhd [2014] 6 CLJ 269. The courts have consistently held that pursuant to section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, he who alleges a fact must prove it. A claimant seeking damages cannot succeed by merely asserting mathematical figures, relying on assumptions, or presenting unsubstantiated particulars. The claimant must strictly prove both liability and the exact quantum of actual losses sustained using valid, cogent documentary evidence. If the claimant fails to prove the quantum, they lose that portion of the action.

This strict requirement echoes the time-honoured principle famously laid down by Lord Goddard CJ in Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR 177 (and similarly affirmed in The

Susquehanna [1926] AC 655 and Bolag v. Hutchison [1905] AC All of these 3 cases were as quoted in Datuk Mohd Ali). The overarching ratio decidendi of these authorities is that it is never sufficient for claimants to merely assert that they have suffered damages, nor is it acceptable to simply write down particulars and 9 "throw them at the head of the court" demanding compensation. The burden rests strictly on the claimants to actively and conclusively prove the exact damage they have suffered to the satisfaction of the court.

When applying these principles to the current facts, it becomes evident that the Respondents have fallen short of this strict evidentiary standard. The First Respondent claimed an astronomical sum of RM6,035,304.00, the Second Respondent claimed RM530,129.00, the Third Respondent claimed RM1,275,885.83, and the Fourth Respondent claimed RM1,106,681.12. However, rather than producing certified audited accounts to unequivocally prove their exact net profit margins, the Respondents effectively "threw" these massive figures at the Court, relying heavily on unverified gross invoices and highly speculative baseline extrapolations. Consequently, by failing to provide immaculate and isolated financial data, the Respondents failed to discharge their strict legal burden of proving the actual mathematical quantum of their alleged financial losses.

Furthermore, the requirement of proving a strict causal link is perfectly illustrated in Pandan Utama Sdn Bhd v. Mohd. Zaki Zakaria & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 955. In that case, the High Court rejected a claim for damages where the plaintiff merely showed a shortfall in revenue between financial years. The ratio decidendi established by Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali J (as he then was) is that it is thoroughly insufficient for a claimant to merely point to recorded financial losses or a drop in revenue; the claimant must 10 positively and conclusively prove that those specific losses were directly caused by the wrongful act of the defendants, rather than other factors.

The Respondents' claims in the present case suffer from the exact same fatal deficiency regarding causation. A mere assertion of lost sales or a drop in revenue cannot be sustained if it is not directly and exclusively linked to the Applicant's wrongful ex parte TDO. For example, the First Respondent attempted to claim multi-million ringgit losses but admitted during cross-examination that their calculations erroneously included products such as “Ori Sedap”, which were entirely unaffected by the TDO. Similarly, the Second Respondent attempted to project historical losses using 2021 sales data, completely ignoring the massive intervening economic downturn caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Just as in Pandan Utama, the Respondents failed to establish that their alleged financial shortfalls flowed directly and exclusively from the Applicant's TDO, thereby breaking the necessary chain of causation.

In respect of claims for loss of business profits, the Court is strictly guided by the Federal Court's landmark decision in Taiping Poly (M) Sdn Bhd v Wong Fook Toh & Ors [2011] 3 CLJ 837. The apex court established that damages in intellectual property and trade description disputes are tortious and compensatory in nature, aiming for restitutio in integrum—to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in had the wrongful act not been committed. 11

The ratio decidendi of Taiping Poly is that the burden remains squarely on the claimant to strictly prove the actual loss sustained by reason of the wrongdoer's conduct. The Federal Court emphatically held that speculative and unproven damages must be excluded. Consequently, a claimant cannot simply equate a drop in gross sales with actual damages. A strict distinction must be drawn between 'loss of sales' and 'loss of profits'. To succeed, the claimant is required to establish the actual net profit that would have been earned, which is typically demonstrated through certified audited financial statements that actively account for all relevant costs, expenses, and overhead contingencies.

When applying these rigorous standards to the present case, the Respondents’ multi-million ringgit claims for loss of profits are fundamentally flawed. The Respondents (particularly the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent, and the Fourth Respondent) premised their exorbitant projections almost entirely on gross sales summaries, tax invoices, and pre-TDO baselines without adducing any reliable, audited evidence of their net profit margins. By failing to isolate the exact net profit derived specifically from the affected tobacco products and ignoring intervening economic contingencies, their calculations amount to the very type of speculative and unproven damages that the Federal Court in Taiping Poly expressly forbade. Consequently, the massive claims for specific financial losses cannot be allowed as they have not been proven to the degree of certainty required by law. 12

As for goodwill and reputation, the law recognises that once liability is established, some degree of damage to goodwill may be presumed. However, the quantification of such damage remains a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised in light of the evidence and surrounding circumstances. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings 20. As mentioned earlier, the Respondents have advanced substantial claims for damages, in certain instances reaching several million ringgit, premised primarily on alleged loss of business profits, supported by invoices, sales summaries and internal records.

The claim by the First Respondent is the most substantial, amounting to RM6,035,304.00. However, the evidence elicited during cross-examination materially undermines this claim. It was revealed that certain products, such as “Ori Sedap”, were not subject to the TDO, which was confined to specific products, namely “Pak Ori” and “Ori Keretapi”. This fundamental error severs the causal link between the Applicant’s wrongful TDO and the alleged losses. Furthermore, although the First Respondent acknowledged the existence of certified audited financial statements, they consciously chose not to produce them before the Court. The failure to adduce such crucial, available evidence warrants the invocation of an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the audited documents would have contradicted their exorbitant claim. 13

The Second Respondent claimed RM530,129.07 for a total loss of business over 36.5 months. The fatal flaw in the Second Respondent’s case is their methodology. The Second Respondent inexplicably relied on their 2021 sales figures to retrospectively project their alleged losses for the period from 2017 to 2020. As the Applicant rightly points out, relying on 2021 data—a period when almost all businesses globally suffered severe operational and financial downturns due to the COVID-19 pandemic—to estimate historical losses is wholly illogical and highly speculative. Compounded by the complete absence of audited accounts, the Second Respondent's mathematical projections amount to mere conjecture.

While the use of a pre-incident baseline by the Third and Fourth Respondents provided a more credible foundation than the Second Respondent’s method, the resulting claim was nonetheless undermined by the same fundamental deficiency: a reliance on gross sales data in the absence of proven net profit margins. Furthermore, projecting 2016 sales in a linear, uninterrupted fashion across 2020 and 2021 completely ignores intervening economic realities, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic, rendering the final figures speculative.

The position of the Third Respondent is, in certain respects, distinguishable in that the quantum claimed for loss of business profits was significantly higher, amounting to RM1,275,885.83. The Third Respondent relied on a 2016 baseline, a pre-TDO period, to project losses over 1,640 days. Notwithstanding this distinction, the 14 fundamental deficiency remains the same. The projections were premised on gross sales figures, with no reliable evidence of net profit margins. It is trite law that such projections, unsupported by audited accounts or credible financial records, amount to mere conjecture. The Third Respondent, like the Second Respondent, failed to discharge the burden of proving actual financial loss.

In respect of the Fourth Respondent, the claim similarly relied on 2016 sales records to justify a sum of RM1,106,681.12. Although the Fourth Respondent provided a detailed breakdown of the goods allegedly seized, including items described as “Daun Rokok Kampung Ori”, this does not in itself establish the quantum of loss. There was no satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that the records relied upon exclusively related to the products affected by the TDO, nor was there any proof of the net profit that would have been derived from such products. In the absence of audited financial evidence, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

In the circumstances, while the Court accepts that the Respondents’ business operations were disrupted by the TDO, the quantum of loss claimed has not been proven with the degree of certainty required by law.

The Second Respondent, the Third Respondent, and the Fourth Respondent also claimed specific sums for the physical tobacco products seized during the KPDNKK raids. Specifically, the Second Respondent claimed RM16,120.25 for their seized business goods. The Third Respondent claimed RM18,000.00, which was calculated 15 based on the actual price of RM2.00 per packet for 9,000 packets of their tobacco products. Meanwhile, the Fourth Respondent claimed RM39,250.00 for various seized items, which included "Daun Rokok Kampung Ori", "Tembakau Jawa Ori", product wrappers, and storage boxes.

To arrive at these figures, the Respondents primarily relied on the KPDNKK seizure lists and multiplied the quantity of the seized packets by the retail market price printed on the packaging. The Respondents contended that the goods were held for over three years, rendering them perished and unsaleable. In advancing this claim, the Respondents rightfully relied on the legal principle established in Thye Huat Chan Sdn Bhd v Thye Shen Trading Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 99. This case established that damages directly arising from the wrongful seizure of goods under a nullified TDO must be compensated by the party who initiated the ex parte order. The Applicant cannot simply attribute the loss to KPDNKK's actions, as the raid was the intended, direct consequence of the Applicant obtaining the TDO.

However, having scrutinised the competing submissions, I am inclined to agree entirely with the compelling arguments advanced by the Applicant in resisting this specific head of claim.

Firstly, the Respondents’ methodology of valuation is fundamentally flawed. As the Applicant rightly argues, the basic premise of tortious damages is restitutio in integrum—to restore the injured party to their original position, not to provide a windfall. By claiming the full 16 gross retail sales value of the seized goods, the Respondents are attempting to claim an amount that includes unincurred overheads, marketing costs, and unrealised profit margins. The Respondents completely failed to adduce evidence detailing the actual cost of production or the actual net profit they would have uniquely derived from these specific goods. To award the gross retail value would result in unjust enrichment. Furthermore, it cannot be safely presumed that every single packet seized would have been guaranteed a successful sale in the open market.

Secondly, the burden rests on the Respondents to mitigate their losses. The Applicant validly pointed out that the Respondents failed to adduce any documentary evidence or correspondence to show that they took active, prompt steps to demand the return of the seized goods from KPDNKK.

Thirdly, the Respondents' contention that the goods had completely perished or expired after being held by KPDNKK remains a bare assertion. No independent inspection reports, photographic evidence of the spoiled goods post-seizure, or expert evidence regarding the specific shelf-life of the tobacco were tendered to substantiate this claim.

Therefore, while it is an undeniable fact that a seizure occurred following the Applicant's ex parte TDO, the Respondents have failed to strictly prove the specific mathematical quantum of their losses under this head. Consequently, the Court cannot allow these exorbitant specific sums, and any general hardship suffered from 17 the seizure will instead be absorbed and compensated within the global award of nominal damages.

It is an undeniable reality that each and every Respondent had their physical goods seized and ruined as a direct consequence of the Applicant's wrongful TDO. However, while the physical loss of the goods is indisputable, the Court notes the overarching difficulty in accurately isolating the exact mathematical financial losses derived from these specific goods based on the imperfect records provided. To serve justice and adequately compensate the Respondents for this tangible loss, the Court finds it appropriate to award an additional sum of RM20,000.00 in nominal damages to each and every Respondent specifically for the loss of the seized goods.

The Third Respondent and the Fourth Respondent also forcefully pressed for an additional award of RM50,000.00 each for aggravated damages, citing the humiliation, mental distress, and the threat of criminal sanctions arising from the KPDNKK raids. While I acknowledge the distress suffered by the Respondents, I must decline to make a specific award under the strict head of Aggravated Damages. The law is settled that an award of aggravated damages requires exceptional, contumelious, or high-handed conduct by the tortfeasor. As elucidated by the Court of Appeal in Sambaga Valli a/p KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2018] 1 MLJ 784, aggravated damages are a species of compensatory damages awarded for intangible injuries—such as mental distress and hardship—that are exacerbated by the exceptional or oppressive conduct of the wrongdoer. 18

The strict legal threshold for such an award was comprehensively addressed in Khairuddin Abu Hassan v. Wan Aeidil Wan Abdullah & Ors [2022] 9 CLJ 579. In that case, the High Court, citing established appellate authorities such as Sambaga Valli, elucidated the ratio decidendi that aggravated damages are a distinct species of compensatory damages intended to address intangible injuries, including humiliation, insult, and distress.

However, the paramount requirement for such an award is the presence of exceptional, contumelious, or high-handed conduct on the part of the wrongdoer. The Court held that there must be clear evidence of malevolence, spite, malice, or arrogance. It is not intended as a mere top-up for ordinary damages, but rather addresses situations where the defendant's oppressive conduct exacerbates the plaintiff's injury to their pride and dignity.

Applying this strict standard to the present facts, the claims by the Third and Fourth Respondents for specific aggravated damages must fail. While the Court acknowledges the genuine distress, humiliation, and threat of criminal sanctions suffered by the Respondents as a result of the KPDNKK raids, the Applicant's conduct does not meet the necessary threshold of contumelious or exceptional malevolence.

In the present case, the Applicant obtained the TDO through a lawful, albeit ex parte, statutory mechanism available under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Applicant acted with outright malice, 19 vindictiveness, or a contumelious disregard warranting punitive-style aggravation. The general hardship and distress experienced by the Respondents are more appropriately compensated within the global award of nominal damages for the overall disruption of their business. Nominal Damages 40. The Court accepts that the TDO, which was ultimately set aside, had a significant impact on the Respondents’ business operations. The raids and seizure of goods would have caused disruption and inconvenience, and some degree of loss of goodwill is to be expected.

Having evaluated the competing principles, the Court is faced with a distinct evidentiary dilemma. The Respondents definitively suffered disruptions, lost their physical goods, and were blacked out from trading due to the wrongful ex parte TDO. However, as noted above, they failed to adduce the precise, audited financial evidence required to quantify their net loss of profits with mathematical certainty. To resolve this, I respectfully adopt the approach taken by Umi Kalthum J (as she then was) in Tan Mei Li & Ors v Golden Regal Restaurant Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 LNS 364, applying the established principles set out in Justice BN Krishnan's Law of Damages and Compensation. The law realistically recognises that a lack of mathematical precision or perfect evidence does not completely bar the recovery of damages. Where liability and the occurrence of damage are established, the court must do the best it can with the insufficient materials available, even if it requires making allowances for contingencies. 20

The paramount principle governing this scenario is this: "The guilty party must not be allowed to go scot-free, simply because the evidence adduced is insufficient to prove the exact amount of compensation." Therefore, because it is impossible to accurately isolate the precise financial loss based on the imperfect records tendered, yet recognising that a compensable wrong was indeed committed by the Applicant, the only fair and equitable remedy is an award of global nominal damages.

Hence, where liability is established, but the extent of loss depends on too many contingencies or remains unproven, the appropriate remedy is an award of nominal damages.

Such an award serves to recognise the infringement of the Respondents’ rights, while at the same time adhering to the principle that damages must be proven and not merely presumed. Costs 45. The Respondents have also included specific claims for legal fees incurred to intervene and set aside the wrongful ex parte TDO. It is established law that legal expenses reasonably incurred to set aside wrongfully obtained ex parte orders are a foreseeable consequence and can be claimed. However, rather than awarding these as a specific itemised damage, the Court exercises its discretion to assess and award these as fair and reasonable costs of the proceedings, taking into account that the Third Respondent and the 21 Fourth Respondent were represented by the same firm of solicitors in one package. Conclusion 46. Premised on the above reasons, and taking a global view of the unquantifiable loss of profits, the damage to goodwill and reputation via media exposure, and the general distress suffered over the protracted years the TDO was in force, this Court hereby makes the following orders: i. The Applicant shall pay global nominal damages of RM50,000.00 to each and every one of the Respondents (the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent, and the Fourth Respondent) for the general disruption, loss of goodwill, and unquantifiable loss of business profits. ii. Recognising that the Respondents definitively had their physical goods seized and detained by KPDNKK—rendering them perished and unsaleable— this Court adds a further RM20,000.00 as Nominal Damages to each and every Respondent specifically for the loss of the seized goods. iii. Therefore, the total nominal damages awarded is RM70,000.00 for each and every Respondent. iv. In respect of the legal costs incurred for these proceedings, the Applicant shall pay costs of RM10,000.00 to the First Respondent, RM10,000.00 to the Second Respondent, and 22 another RM10,000.00 to be shared between the Third and Fourth Respondents, as they were represented by the same solicitors in one package. Dated: 20th April, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------- YA Dr. Hj. JOHN LEE KIEN HOW @ MOHD JOHAN LEE JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA ALOR SETAR Solicitor : Raj Shankar A/L For The Applicant Rajahram & Amutha A/P Arumugam Tetuan C. Y. Ten & Co Solicitor : Tan How Sing For The First Respondents Messrs Peter Huang & Richard 23 Solicitor : Khaw Veon Szu & For The Second, Third & Yeop Ming Ming Fourth Respondents Messrs Veon Szu & Kok Thye Table of Authorities A & F Marketing Sdn Bhd lwn. Peh Zi Xiang [2022] 1 LNS 1950 Bolag v. Hutchison [1905] AC 515 Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR 177 Datuk Mohd Ali Haji Abdul Majid & Anor vs. Public Bank Bhd [2014] 6 CLJ 269 Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 4 CLJ 329 Khairuddin Abu Hassan v. Wan Aeidil Wan Abdullah & Ors [2022] 9 CLJ 579 Low Cheng Soon v. TA Securities Sdn Bhd [2003] 1 MLJ 389 Nusantara Nilam Sdn Bhd v Hicks Flat JMB [2018] 1 LNS 817 Pandan Utama Sdn Bhd v. Mohd. Zaki Zakaria & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 955 Parkson Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Fazaruddin Ibrahim [2002] 4 CLJ 18 Petra Perdana Berhad v Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra [2017] MLJU 410 Sambaga Valli a/p KR Ponnusamy v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2018] 1 MLJ 784 Taiping Poly (M) Sdn Bhd v Wong Fook Toh & Ors [2011] 3 CLJ 837 Tan Mei Li & Ors v Golden Regal Restaurant Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 LNS 364 The Susquehanna [1926] AC 655 Thye Huat Chan Sdn Bhd v Thye Shen Trading Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 99