SENSATION NETWORK SDN. BHD. HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

SENSATION NETWORK SDN. BHD. HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

The High Court found the Sessions Court did not err: the respondent adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence (e-wallet sales report and deployment projection) to prove on a balance of probabilities the quantum of loss attributable to the injunction; the appellant produced no credible counter-evidence to rebut those figures; absent proof of a legal error or a manifestly erroneous award, the appellate court will not disturb the discretionary assessment of damages. Consequently the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-110-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff Below: Sensation Network Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant Below: Hong Leong Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 August 2025
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-110-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (re Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Interim Injunction, Termination of Contract, Onus/burden of Proof, Obsolescence of Equipment, E Wallet Transactions, Merchant Services
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Banking Remedies (damages and Injunctions) Assessment of Damages Interim Injunction Termination of Contract Onus/burden of Proof +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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sensation Network Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff Below

Hong Leong Bank Berhad

Respondent/defendant Below

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (re Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court Judge erred in finding the defendant proved actual losses during the injunction period
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof remained on the defendant to prove actual losses and whether the plaintiff could rely on failure to disprove
  3. 3 Whether the quantum assessed was speculative or sufficiently supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the Sessions Court did not err: the respondent adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence (e-wallet sales report and deployment projection) to prove on a balance of probabilities the quantum of loss attributable to the injunction; the appellant produced no credible counter-evidence to rebut those figures; absent proof of a legal error or a manifestly erroneous award, the appellate court will not disturb the discretionary assessment of damages. Consequently the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent (High Court) of RM5000.00 subject to allocatur