DAMANSARA REALTY (PAHANG) SDN BHD OM CAHAYA MINERAL ASIA BERHAD

DAMANSARA REALTY (PAHANG) SDN BHD OM CAHAYA MINERAL ASIA BERHAD

Termination letter, while invoking a 60‑day notice, functioned in practice as an immediate termination because plaintiff was denied access and ordered to demobilize; defendant failed to comply with contractual preconditions for immediate termination (notice of breaches and 14‑day cure) and therefore the termination was unlawful. On damages, the High Court erred by awarding RM10.8 million based on unpleaded/alternative submissions and unproven Part C documents; special damages in paragraph 29 were not proved and the award was set aside.

Citation
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-685-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Damansara Realty (Pahang) Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Om Cahaya Mineral Asia Berhad
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 December 2020
Case Number
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-685-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decisions on Liability and Assessment of Damages (court of Appeal Determination)
Outcome
Appeal W-02(NCvC)(W)-2289-11/2018 dismissed (liability affirmed); Appeal W-02(IM)(NCvC)-685-04/2019 allowed (damages award set aside); no order as to costs for both appeals.
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Illegality and Licences, Special Damages (wasted Expenditure), Specific Performance, Contract Interpretation, Admissibility of Documents (part C), Proprietary Mining Licence
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Mining/regulatory Law Evidence Law Remedies and Damages Termination of Contract Illegality and Licences Special Damages (wasted Expenditure) Specific Performance +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damansara Realty (Pahang) Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Om Cahaya Mineral Asia Berhad

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Decisions on Liability and Assessment of Damages (court of Appeal Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant lawfully terminated the agreement (immediate termination vs 60-day notice)
  2. 2 Whether lack of mining licences rendered the agreement illegal and barred relief
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff completed the first stage works and entitlement to payment

Ratio Decidendi

Termination letter, while invoking a 60‑day notice, functioned in practice as an immediate termination because plaintiff was denied access and ordered to demobilize; defendant failed to comply with contractual preconditions for immediate termination (notice of breaches and 14‑day cure) and therefore the termination was unlawful. On damages, the High Court erred by awarding RM10.8 million based on unpleaded/alternative submissions and unproven Part C documents; special damages in paragraph 29 were not proved and the award was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal W-02(NCvC)(W)-2289-11/2018 dismissed (liability affirmed); Appeal W-02(IM)(NCvC)-685-04/2019 allowed (damages award set aside); no order as to costs for both appeals.

Orders

  • High Court judgment dated 19 October 2018 (liability finding that defendant wrongfully terminated the Agreement) affirmed
  • High Court judgment dated 29 March 2019 (award of RM10,800,000) set aside; no order as to costs for both appeals