Sensation Network Sdn. Bhd. v Hong Leong Bank Berhad (WA-12ANCvC-110-05/2024)

Lampiran

LAMPIRAN 2 in the SoC immediately. However, the Plaintiff failed to do so. 15. On 16.7.2021, the Plaintiff filed the Writ and SoC against the Defendant to claim, among others, the following: S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q (a) to restrain the Defendant from taking any action to terminate the Agreement before the expiry date; (b) to restrain the Defendant from taking any action to replace the Plaintiff with RSSB or any other party as the service provider of terminals for the qualified Merchants recruited by the Plaintiff including the 816 qualified Merchants; (c) to restrain the Defendant from taking any action to terminate the supply or to replace the Plaintiff’s POS Terminal with the All In One Terminal supplied by RSSB or any terminal supplied by the Defendant or other parties for the 816 qualified Merchants; (d) a declaration that the Agreement was wrongfully or unlawfully terminated by the Defendant; and (e) alternatively, special damages to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 16. On the same date, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application and subsequently obtained the Injunction Order in these terms: “to restrain the Defendant, whether by itself or through its directors, officers, servants, or agents, or any of them, or by any means, from taking any action to terminate the supply and/or replace the POS Terminals of Sensation Network Sdn Bhd supplied by the Plaintiff with “All In One Terminal” supplied by Revenue Harvest S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q (Revenue Solution Sdn Bhd) and/or any terminal supplied by the Defendant and/or other parties for the 816 qualified Merchants recruited by the Plaintiff, including the 816 qualified Merchants as listed in Appendix 1 of the Statement of Claim”. 17. On 23.8.2021, the Defendant filed an application to set aside the Injunction Order. On 22.12.2021, the Court allowed the Defendant’s application and ordered, among others, that the Injunction Order be set aside and damages suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Injunction Order are to be assessed and paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 18. On 10.1.2022, the Defendant filed encl. 29 for the damages suffered by the Defendant during the period from 3.8.2021 to 22.12.2021 to be assessed (‘Period To Be Assessed’). 19. The hearing for the assessment of damages was conducted on 28.7.2023, 18.9.2023 and 28.11.2023 where one witness each was called by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Legal Principles 20. O. 37, r. 1(1) of the RC 2012 provides as follows: S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q “Assessment of damages by Registrar (O. 37, r. 1) 1. (1) Where judgment is given for damages to be assessed and no provision is made by the judgment as to how they are to be assessed, the damages shall, subject to the provisions of this Order, be assessed by the Registrar, and the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment shall, within one month from the date of the judgment, apply to the Registrar for directions and the provisions of Order 34 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply.”. 21. All appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing (see O. 55, r. 2 of the RC 2012 and s 29 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972) [Act 91]). 22. In Dato’ Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow v Raub Oil Mill Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 2541, I had occasion to consider an appeal which was similarly against the decision of the SCJ for assessment of damages and I had summarised the legal principles in this manner: “12. … (a) 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 S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q only (see Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v Wong Fook Kum [1969] 1 MLJ 99); (b) 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); (c) 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); (d) 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 S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q 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 (e) 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).”. 23. To this, I would add the authorities cited by the Defendant for the following propositions: (a) the court’s power to award and to assess damages is a discretionary one. This discretionary power must be judicially exercised by the court. In assessing the damages to be awarded, the quantum should as nearly as possible be sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation (see Lim Chong Yean v Koperasi Pegawai Hutan Melayu & Anor [2022] 7 MLJ 483); and S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q (b) in a claim for damages, there must be a causal link between the injunction and the damages suffered by the defendant (see Jeffery Law Siew Su & Ors v Tu Gui [2017] 3 MLJ 1). 24. In determining this instant appeal, I was guided by the above stated legal principles. The Grounds of Appeal 25. The Plaintiff submitted two grounds of appeal which will be discussed in turn below. 1st Ground: Whether the SCJ erred in fact and/ or in law in finding that the Defendant has proved the actual losses incurred during the Injunction Period 26. Before proceeding further, there is, firstly, a need to illuminate on some key terminologies. 27. According to the Plaintiff, a POS Terminal is a terminal that accepts credit and debit cards, while an All-In-One Terminal is a terminal that supports credit card, debit card and e-wallet payments functions. In this case, there are two models of the All In One Terminal, namely, the Saturn Terminal model supplied by the Plaintiff and the HLBBA920 Terminal model supplied by the Defendant. Both the Saturn Terminal and the All In One S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q Terminal can accept payments via credit card, debit card and e-wallet. 28. However, the Defendant clarified that a POS Terminal is a hardware device for processing card payments. The models vary, such as the A920, Saturn, etc. The All In One Terminal can refer to a device with integrated hardware system that accept payments or a dedicated system consisting of one or more terminals sharing hardware. While both devices accept payment processing in transactions, they do not necessarily support all payment methods, for example, e-wallet, debit cards, credit cards, NFC, Google Pay and Apple Pay. Compatibility will depend on the arrangement between the Defendant and the terminal vendors. Basically, even though although both Terminals may potentially have similar capabilities, the POS Terminal in the instant case was not configured to accept e-wallet transactions due to its specific settings and restrictions (see the explanation by the Defendant’s witness, Mr. Chong Chin Keong). 29. The salient part of the SCJ’s Grounds of Judgment (‘GoJ’) on the issues raised by the 1st ground of appeal is re-produced below for the ease of reference: “[20] Seperti yang diterangkan oleh SD, fungsi POS Terminal adalah terhad jika dibandingkan dengan All In One Terminal. All In One Terminal boleh menerima, antara lain, pembayaran melalui e-dompet (e-wallet) seperti GrabPay dan TouchnGo. Manakala POS S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q Terminal tidak mempunyai fungsi tersebut. Akibat penggantian POS Terminal yang tergendala disebabkan Perintah lnjunksi Ex-Parte tersebut, Defendan terpaksa menanggung kerugian sebanyak RM299,799.55. [21] Mahkamah merujuk kepada keterangan SD di Q&A 6 seperti yang berikut: 6. Q: Refer to pages 4 - 7 of the Defendant's Bundle of Documents. Please describe this document. This is the summary and calculation of the estimated projection of the sales which would have been generated by HLBB from electronic wallet [“E-wallet”) transactions between August 2021 to December 2021. The old POS Terminals do not support E-wallet transactions. With the injunction in place between the period 3.8.2021 to 22.12.2021, HLBB was unable to take any action to replace the old POS Terminals which were still with the Merchants up to December 2021. As a result thereof, HLBB suffered financial losses at an S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q estimated amount of RM299,799.55 between August 2021 to December 2021 since no E-wallet transaction could be done on the old POS Terminals. [22] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa akibat Perintah lnjunksi Ex-Parte tersebut, transaksi-transaksi antara Saudagar-saudagar dan pelanggannya yang sepatutnya boleh dilaksanakan melalui kaedah pembayaran yang disokong dengan All In One Terminal Terminal tidak dapat dilaksanakan dan ini seterusnya memberikan impak kewangan yang memudaratkan kepada Defendan. [23] Sepanjang Tempoh tersebut, Defendan terpaksa mematuhi Perintah lnjunksi Ex-Parte tersebut dengan menghentikan penukaran dan penggantian POS Terminal walaupun POS Terminal telah menjadi usang (obsolete) dan tidak lagi menyokong sistem IT Defendan. [24] Saksi Defendan telah menerangkan bahawa sekiranya POS Terminal tidak ditukar kepada All In One Terminal, sistem lama POS Terminal yang mana akan ditamatkan akan menyebabkan Saudagarsaudagar tidak dapat menggunakan POS Terminal lagi selepas itu dan ini menjejaskan perniagaan mereka. Kami merujuk kepada muka Keterangan SD: S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q EW So, my next question will be, is there any consequences if they do not want to convert to the new system? CCK Because the system will be turned off at a stipulated time for these terminals that are using the old software which is the older terminals provided by the Plaintiff. So, once it is turned off, this means that the merchants, the customers, they would not be able to use the terminals anymore. So, this would in turn impact customers' experience, where they are unable to make collections at that point in time. [25] Mahkamah selanjutnya merujuk kepada SD di Q&A 7 Pernyataan Saksi yang telah merujuk kepada Laporan Hong Leong Bank Berhad E-Wal/et Sales (“Laporan Defendan”) yang dilampirkan di muka surat 3-5, lkatan Dokumen Tambahan Defendan dan selanjutnya menerangkan bahawa anggaran jualan bulanan yang boleh dijana oleh satu (1) saudagar adalah sebanyak RM35,438.00 sebulan melalui fungsi e-dompet (e-wallet) daripada All In One Terminal seperti yang berikut: S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q 7. Q: Refer to page 4 of the Defendant’s Bundle of Documents. Please describe the table at the bottom of the page. Alipay 7824 UnionPay 545 NETS 1064 TNG 7125 UnionPay QR 5901 Grab 3285 Boost 259 Alipay QR 3425 Shopee Pay 3671 TOTAL SALES RM (per Merchant) 35438 This is the estimated monthly average sales one Merchant is able to generate from the different types of E-wallets with HLBB A920 Terminals. The above data is based on HLBB’s Sales Report of the average monthly sales recorded by nine (9) types of E-wallets platform for the period of 3 months i.e., between September 2021 to November 2021 [please see page 1-3 of the Defendant’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents]. S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q [26] Selanjutnya Defendan telah mengemukakan unjuran keuntungan yang dijana daripada fungsi e-Wallet bagi Tempoh tersebut dalam Laporan Defendan di muka surat 3 hingga 7 lkatan Dokumen Defendan dan muka surat 3 hingga 5 lkatan Dokumen Tambahan Defendan. [27] Dalam Laporan Defendan, Defendan juga telah menerangkan dan memberi justifikasi berkenaan pengiraan taksiran ganti rugi bagi kerugian yang dialami Defendan dalam Tempoh tersebut yang mana adalah konsisten dengan Q&A 8, Pernyataan Saksi seperti yang berikut: 8. Q: Refer to page 7 of the Defendant's Bundle of Documents. Please describe the table at the bottom of the page. AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC TOTAL (RM) Progressive Deployment 100 220 334 454 584 Cumulative Sales Vol 3,543,729.89 7,796,205.77 11,836,057.85 16,088,533.72 20,695,382.58 59,959,909.82 Average MDR 1% 35,437.30 77,962.06 118,360.58 160,885.34 206,953.83 599,599.10 Average Margin 0.5% 17,718.65 38,981.03 59,180.29 80,442.67 103,476.91 299,799.55 S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q ➢ MDR-Merchant Discount Rate charged by HLBB to the Merchant at varying rates depending on the merchant’s monthly sales volume. ➢ Average Margin-From the average MDR 1.00%, the average cost of MDR is 0.5% which is to be paid to the E-wallet service providers. The balance of the 0.5% MDR is the estimated margin HLBB is entitled to Pursuant to the termination of the Agreement, there is a balance of 584 POS Terminals which could not be deployed from August 2021 to December 2021 as a result of the Injunction. From the actual E-wallet sales for the period September 2021 to November 2021 obtained from HLBB’s record, the estimated monthly sales per merchant is RM35,437.30 [as explained in Q&A 7 above]. This figure is then multiplied by the number of merchants whose terminals HLBB progressively deployed from August 2021 to December 2021 to obtain the monthly sales volume. As can be seen in the table above, the sales volume is estimated to accumulate to RM59,959,909.82. From the cumulative S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q sales volume, a 1% MDR amounting to RM599,599.10 shall be paid by the Merchants to HLBB for utilizing the E-wallet services. Half of the proceeds, i.e., half of RM599,599.10 is cost to be paid to the E-wallet providers. There is a balance of RM299,799.55 which is the estimated profit HLBB is entitled to from the E-wallet transactions between August 2021 to December 2021. [28] Mahkamah mendapati berdasarkan Laporan Defendan dan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh SD, Defendan telah berjaya membuktikan kerugian yang dialaminya sepanjang Tempoh tersebut.”. 30. The Plaintiff submitted that, based on the documentary evidence, it was not disputed that the Plaintiff recruited 816 Merchants who initially only used the POS Terminal without e-wallet functionality. 31. It was further submitted that, based on the evidence of the Defendant’s witness in cross-examination, – (a) the capabilities of the Saturn Terminal and the All In One Terminal both Terminals are identical; (b) notice was provided to the Plaintiff in early or mid-2020 for the POS Terminal to be replaced with the All In One S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q Terminal and it was “a mandate to comply with the compliance and regulatory of the payment industry”; (c) many Merchants had withdrawn and refused to continue using the Defendant’s services due to the requirement to switch to the All In One Terminal; and (d) the Defendant possessed data on how many Merchants had withdrawn from its services but this was not included in the Defendant’s Bundle of Documents because many Merchants had terminated the Defendant’s services. Hence, the SCJ erred in fact and/ or in law by failing to consider that many Merchants withdrew or pulled out due to the obligation to switch to the All In One Terminal. 32. Upon review of the Record of Appeal and taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, I was persuaded to accept the Defendant’s contentions that – (a) the conversion from the POS Terminal to the All In One Terminal was compelled by the termination of the Agreement with the Plaintiff and was not “forced”; (b) the conversion was essential due to the anticipated obsolescence of the POS Terminal system and software. An outdated POS Terminal lacks support for e-wallet transactions, preventing the Merchants from processing such payment methods. This will directly impact on their S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q revenue and profit. The Defendant’s witness had explained that if the POS Terminal turned obsolete prior to the replacement of the All In One Terminal, the Merchants’ customers’ experience will be impacted, and the Merchants would not be able to make collections at that point in time; (c) the Defendant had to comply with the Injunction Order, notwithstanding that the POS Terminal had become obsolete and was no longer supporting the Defendant’s IT System; (d) the Injunction Order had prevented and prohibited the transactions between the Merchants and their customers from using payment methods supported by the All In One Terminal; and (e) the estimated monthly sales that can be generated by one Merchant is RM35,438.00 per month through the e-wallet function of the All In One Terminal (see the Defendant’s “E-Wallet Sales Report” for the duration between September to November 2021 at pp 264 - 266, encl. 5). 33. Next, the Plaintiff submitted that the SCJ erred by failing to consider that the amount of damages claimed by the Defendant is a sum that was fabricated by the Defendant without any supporting evidence. S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q 34. The Plaintiff invited the Court to consider that the switch to the new system was made mandatory in 2020 and only 266 Merchants were willing to switch to the new system before the Agreement was terminated. The Defendant's witness had repeatedly admitted that most Merchants terminated the Defendant’s services due to the mandatory policy to switch to the new system. Yet, based on the Defendant’s statistics, 584 Merchants were estimated to have magically switched to the new system within the Injunction Period, which lasted for only about around five months from 3.8.2021 to 22.12.2021 as follows: Year Merchants who have switched to the new system From 2020 to 20 May 2021 266 Year Merchants who are estimated to switch to the new system according to the Defendant’s statistics. June 2021 0 July 2021 0 August 2021 100 September 120 October 114 November 120 December 130 S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q 35. With reference to the Defendant’s “Deployment Timeline Projection” and its presentation of the “Progressive Deployment” at p 265, encl. 5, the Plaintiff fervently argued that it was wrong for the Defendant to present estimated figures regarding the number of Merchants who have switched to the new system when the Defendant possessed actual statistics. The statistics provided by the Defendant were artificial, speculative, unrealistic and unreliable. 36. Additionally, the Plaintiff submitted at length regarding the Defendant’s Sales Report (see paragraphs 43 - 56 of the Written Submission, encl. 21), to which I sought oral clarification and the Defendant’s response. Basically, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s Sales Report and calculation therein were inaccurate and based on misconceptions because it assumes that every Merchant generate the same e-wallet transaction amounts as the average e-wallet transactions presented. Even the Defendant’s witness was said to have admitted that their figures were incorrect. 37. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s witness had testified that at the time when the Defendant submitted the supporting documents to the court, it was based on whatever existing information it had. Hence, the statistic on terminals conversion was prepared based on the available data and information obtained by the Defendant and was not speculative, unrealistic or unreliable. 38. Significantly, the Plaintiff – S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q (a) failed to produce any counter evidence to disprove or challenge the amount claimed and the calculation prepared by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s witness admitted during cross-examination that he had no counter evidence to contest the damages sought by the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant’s Report stands unchallenged (see Yu Gui v Jeffery Law Sie Su & Ors [2016] 1 MLJ 102); and (b) raised the purported calculation method which should be adopted by the Defendant in assessing the losses suffered, but it was not put to the Defendant’s witness that the calculation should be to divide the total sales by the total number of merchants across Malaysia rather than to divide the total sales by the number of merchants with transactions. And neither was the Plaintiff’s propositions supported by any documentary evidence or proper data. 39. The Plaintiff’s final argument in respect of the 1st ground of appeal was that the SCJ had erred in finding that the Defendant has successfully proven the actual loss throughout the Injunction Period based on the Sales Report and evidence adduced by the Defendant. 40. It was also emphasised that the Defendant was bound by its pleadings where in the Defence, it was pleaded that a sum of RM25,000.00 each month will be incurred due to delay in the replacement of the POS Terminal with All In One Terminal. S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q 41. However, paragraph 19 of the Defence clearly states that “Berdasarkan pengiraan kasar, Defendan akan mengalami kerugian sebanyak lebih kurang RM25,000.00 sebulan disebabkan kelewatan menggantikan POS TERMINAL Plaintif dengan AIO Terminal. …” i.e. it was an estimated calculation only. The amount was tabulated based on the data that was available at the time when the Defence was drafted. 42. As submitted by the Defendant, loss and damages suffered is a question of fact and damages to be awarded is the judge’s discretionary power which must be exercised judicially. The objection on failure to plead should not be taken too far, beyond what it is adopted for, as a convenient escape (see Lim Chong Yean (supra) and UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd v MA Boon Lan [2014] 1 MLJ 874). 43. In the final analysis, I find that there is no merit in the 1st ground of appeal. 2nd Ground: Whether the SCJ erred in fact and/ or in law in failing to consider the burden of proof always lies upon the Defendant to prove the actual losses incurred during the Injunction Period 44. On the issue of the burden of proof, the SCJ found as follows: S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q “[31] Berkenaan perkara ini, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal untuk menyangkal (disprove) amaun taksiran yang dituntut oleh Defendan. Plaintif gagal mengemukakan sebarang bukti dokumentari untuk mencabar pengiraan dan Laporan Defendan. Tanpa apa-apa bukti dokumentari daripada Plaintif, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Laporan Defendan adalah tepat, terpakai dan sewajarnya diterima oleh Mahkamah untuk tujuan penentuan jumlah taksiran dalam Lampiran 29 di sini. [32] Merujuk kepada keterangan SP yang mengesahkan bahawa Plaintif tidak ada bukti di hadapan Mahkamah untuk menolak jumlah taksiran ganti rugi yang dituntut oleh Defendan seperti berikut: Muka surat 113, Nota Keterangan: NAN Tak, soalan saya, dalam dokumen yang Plaintif failkan ini, ada tak dokumen yang menunjukkan 87 saudagar telah bertukar kepada Saturn Terminal? YSL Tidak ada. Muka surat 121, Nota Keterangan: NAN Ok, Puan telah menolak jumlah tuntutan kerugian yang didakwa oleh Plaintiff, ok, S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q yang dinyatakan oleh Plaintif dalam sales report. Ada tak dokumen yang difailkan oleh Puan atau Plaintif di hadapan Mahkamah sekarang untuk menolak jumlah kerugian yang dituntut oleh Plaintif, oleh bank? YSL Tidak ada.”. 45. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant always bears the burden of proof to prove the actual losses incurred during the Injunction Period but the Defendant failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, the SCJ had erred in finding that the Plaintiff has failed to disprove the purported losses assessed by the Defendant and failed to adduce any documentary evidence to challenge the Defendant’s Sales Report and calculation. 46. The SCJ had used the words “Plaintif telah gagal untuk menyangkal (disprove) amaun taksiran yang dituntut oleh Defendan.”. In my considered view, what the SCJ wanted to articulate was that she was satisfied that the Defendant had adduced sufficient evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the amount of damages being claimed by the Defendant and the onus of proof then shifts to the Plaintiff to provide evidence to refute the same. 47. To “prove” means to provide some form of evidence sufficient to convince the decider to the point that he believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man should, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act on the S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q supposition that it exists (see Subramaniam Paramasivam & Ors v Malaysian Airline System Bhd [2002] 1 CLJ 230). 48. The law does not demand that the Defendant proves with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that it has suffered. The fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the Plaintiff of the necessity of paying damages. Indeed, if absolute certainty was required as to the precise amount of loss that a claimant had suffered, no damages would be recovered at all in many cases (see Sambaga Valli a/p KR Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Ors and Another Appeal [2018] 1 MLJ 784). 49. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the SCJ was not plainly wrong in her finding that sufficient evidence was produced by the Defendant to support its claim and hence, the damages suffered by the Defendant during the Period To Be Assessed had been successfully proven. On the other hand, the Plaintiff failed to produce any counter evidence to effectively challenge the Defendant’s calculations and amount claimed. 50. The 2nd ground of appeal must fail as well. S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q Conclusion 51. Premised on the abovesaid considerations, the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00, subject to allocatur. Dated: 2.10.2025 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Solicitors for the Appellant : Ong Swee Long (Eng Yi Wang with him) Messrs. Tiew & Associates Solicitors for the Respondent: Nurul Ameerah Natasya (Teoh Jo Vi with her) Messrs. Shaikh David & Co. S/N KrhBb8WxxEugpejc57Ns4Q