BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SOUTH CITY PLAZA REGAL OPPORTUNITY SDN BHD

BA-12BNCvC-9-04/2023 Kand. 72 06/06/2024 15:30:59 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO. BA-12BNCVC-9-04/2023 ANTARA BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SOUTH CITY PLAZA (MPSJ/COB SK 0041) …PERAYU DAN REGAL OPPORTUNITY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 706069-V) …RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman Sivil No. BA-B52NCVC-311-10/2018 Antara Badan Pengurusan Bersama South City Plaza (MPSJ/COB SK 0041) …Plaintif Dan Regal Opportunity Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 706069-V) …Defendan] 1 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT Introduction [1] In densely populated cities, the ever-changing skyline means that condominium owners may occasionally awake to find their cherished views eclipsed by newly erected edifices. However, the property in the centre of the present dispute is neither in Hong Kong nor Manhattan but in Seri Kembangan. Nevertheless, the owners/occupants of the building have deemed it proper to institute legal proceedings based on the tort of nuisance. [2] The genesis of the present dispute stemmed from a proposal to erect a commercial billboard. That plan precipitated extensive legal disputation between the parties. This matter has previously engaged the attention of the High Court and the Court of Appeal via a Judicial Review application and has been contested separately in the Sessions Court. The present appeal before this Court seeks to resolve the continuing issues arising from that litigation in the Sessions Court. The Central Issue [3] The pivotal question before this Court is whether the issues resolved in the Judicial Review application are identical to those presented in the current suit and appeal. Specifically, the overriding concern is whether the Sessions Court acted appropriately in relying on the earlier Judicial Review decision of the High Court when adjudicating the matter at hand. 2 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The Parties and the Background Facts [4] The Plaintiff in the Sessions Court (Appellant in this appeal) is the Badan Pengurusan Bersama South City Plaza. It is a Joint Management Body set up pursuant to the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and it represents the strata owners/purchasers of units in South City Plaza, a shopping complex, and the owners and residents of The Academia Condominium in this suit and appeal. [5] The Defendant (Respondent in this appeal), Regal Opportunity Sdn Bhd, is a private limited company. Its business is in the area of construction and media and outdoor advertising. [6] The Defendant had planned to erect a commercial billboard which the Plaintiff contends entitles the strata owners/purchasers of South City Plaza and the owners and residents of The Academia Condominium to claim damages for nuisance. [7] In relation to South City Plaza, the particulars averred by the Plaintiff in its Statement of Claim are as follows: (a) Saiz struktur papan iklan adalah sangat besar (berukur 35 kaki x 50 kaki) (tidak termasuk ketinggian “Stand") yang dikatakan akan didirikan di bahagian Kompleks South City Plaza jika dari padangan dari Lebuhraya tersebut. 3 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) Terdapat dua struktur papan iklan di kawasan itu dan struktur papan iklan Defendan adalah dalam jarak yang sangat dekat dengan South City Plaza, iaitu lebih kurang 100 kaki dari Kompleks South City Plaza dan The Academia. (c) Struktur Papan Iklan akan menghalang penglihatan sebahagian besar pusat beli belah Kompleks South City Plaza daripada pandangan di Lebuhraya tersebut. (d) Halangan kepada penglihatan Kompleks South City Plaza, akan menyebabkan ramai yang melalui jalan di situ untuk tidak dapat melihat Kompleks tersebut dan dengan itu tidak mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai Kompleks Beli Belah tersebut. (e) Halangan terhadap penglihatan Kompleks Beli Belah akan mengakibatkan mereke yang melalul di Lebuhraya tersebut tidak melihat iklan-iklan kedai-kedai yang menjalankan perniagaan di Kompleks tersebut. Ini akan menjejaskan perniagaan di Kompleks South City Plaza. (f) Kesan negative akan diakibatkan oleh kerana halangan terhadap penglihatan South City Plaza iaitu Kompleks Beli Belah kerana kunjungan pembeli belah ke Komplek South City Plaza akan dikurangkan dan dengan itu memberi kesan yang buruk terhadap perniagaan dan pendapatan. 4 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (g) Kunjungan terhadap Kompleks Beli Belah tersebut bergantung kepada lokasinya di mana Kompleks tersebut dapat dilihat dari Lebuhraya Plus tersebut. (h) Halangan serta pengurangan kunjungan pembeli ke Kompleks Beli Belah tersebut akan mengurangkan nilai hartanah Kompleks South City Plaza. (i) Halangan serta pengurangan kunjugan pembeli ke Kompleks Beli Belah tersebut akan mengurangkan kadar sewa kedai-kedai di Kompleks South City Plaza. (j) Iklan-iklan di luar Kompleks Beli Belah, South City Plaza, akan menjadi tidak berkesan dan dengan itu tuanpunya kedai-kedai tidak akan meletakkan apa jua iklan-iklan ke bahagian depan Kompleks Beli Belah kerana iklan-iklan tidak dapat dilihat kerana halangan dari Struktur Papan Iklan Defendan. (k) Pendapatan daripada iklan-iklan yang diletakkan oleh peniaga- peniaga di bahagian depan South City Plaza akan kehilagan kerana iklan-iklan tersebut tidak memberikan apa jua faedah dan tidak mencapai matlamatnya. (l) Struktur Papan Iklan akan menarik perhatian di Lebuhraya Plus dari iklan-iklan yang diletakkan di bahagian luar bangunan South City Plaza. 5 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] Based on the above, the Plaintiff alleged that: 11. Berdasarkan butir-butir seperti di atas Kompleks South City Plaza akan mengalami kerugian dan kerosakan dari segi perniagaan yang dijalankan di Kompleks tersebut dan dengan itu Kompleks South City Plaza, Kompleks Beli Belah tidak akan dapat meneruskan dengan perniagaaan dan penyewaan disebabkan kunjungan pembeli-pembeli akan kurang kerana ramai tidak akan dapat melihati iklan-iklan disebabakan struktur papan iklan yang terlalu besar. Oleh itu perniagaan akan merosot dan menyebabkan kesusahan kewangan kepada perniagaan-pernigaan yang dijalankan di Kompleks South City Plaza. 12. Kompleks South City Plaza akan kehilangan lokasi strategic yang telah diperolehi oleh Kompleks South City Plaza sejak tahun 2003 dengan sekatan/halangan dari Struktur Iklan tersebut. Selanjutnya, dengan kehilangan lokasi strategic oleh Kompleks South City Plaza, nilai Kompleks South City Plaza akan menurun dan ini akan membawa kesan negative terhadap permintaan untuk menyewa unit di Kompleks South City Plaza untuk menjalankan perniagaan masing- masing. [9] With regard to The Academia Condominium, the Plaintiff pleaded as follows: 14. Plaintif menegaskan bahawa mendapati The Academia, iaitu condominium/apartment yang diletak di atas bangunan South City Plaza. Dengan pembinaan struktur papan iklan yang akan 6 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mempunyai lampu-lampu yang terlalu terang serta halangan kepada pandangan daripada pendirian struktur Papan Iklan, ini akan menyebabkan kerosakan keselesaan serta kerugian terhadap nilai condominium/apartment dan dengan itu tuanpunya ataupun penyewa unit apartment di Academia akan kehilagan keselesahan serta merupakan suatu kacau ganggu (‘nuisance / tort’), butir-butir bagi kehilangan keselesahaan, kerugian serta kerosakan adalah seperti berikut:- BUTIR-BUTIR (a) Cahaya dari Struktur Papan Iklan yang besar dan tinggi akan mengganggu keselesahan penduduk-penduduk di Block B. (b) Struktur Papan Iklan adalah merupakan suatu “nuisance” terhadap penikmatan pandagan dari apartmen oleh penduduk- penduduk (“loss of enjoyment’). (c) Struktur Papan Iklan adalah merupakan suatu “nuisance” terhadap penikmatan dan keselesaan apartmen oleh penduduk-penduduk (“loss of enjoyment’). (d) Nilai apartmen-apartmen akan turun kerana ketidak selesahan oleh kerana cahaya dan halangan dari struktur papan iklan tersebut. (e) Peluang bagi penyewaan apartmen akan turun kerana penyewa tidak akan menyewa ataupun melanjutkan penyewaan dan oleh itu kadar sewa juga akan turun. 7 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15. Pendirian Struktur Iklan akan menghalang dan/atau menjejaskan hak kepada ruang udara (“right to air space"), The Academia, hak ini akan diganggu, hilang dan/atau dijejaskan. Selanjutnya, ini adalah merupakan suatu gangguan dengan kehambaaan (“interference with servitudes”). 16. Pendirian Struktur Papan Iklan ditapak di mana sediaada 2 Papan Iklan yang lain, di mana jarak antara Papan Iklan yang sediaada dengan Struktur Papan Iklan Defendan adalah 5 kaki dan jarak antara Papan Iklan yang lain yang sediaada dengan Struktur Papan Iklan Defendan adalah 20 kaki dan ini menunjukkan bahawa jarak antara papan iklan adalah terlalu dekat. [10] In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs in its action in the Sessions Court: (a) suatu perintah injunksi di mana Defendan samada secara sendirinya dan/atau melalui wakil-wakil dan/atau pegawai- pegawai dan/atau pekerja-pekerja dihalang dari mendirikan struktur papan iklan di tapak seperti mana kelulusan yang diperolehi oleh Defendan sehingga pelupusan akhir dan muktamad isu ini dengan Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya dan Kementerian Kerja Raya. (b) Deklarasi bahawa pendirian Struktur Papan Iklan oleh Defendan adalah suatu kacau ganggu kepada pemilik-pemilik di Kompleks South City Plaza dan The Academia. 8 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (c) Deklarasi bahawa pendirian Struktur Papan Iklan oleh Defendan adalah halangan dan/atau menjejaskan hak kepada ruang udara (“interference to right of air space”) kepada pemilik-pemilik di The Academia. (d) Deklarasi bahawa pendirian Struktur Papan Iklan merupakan keadaan yang bahaya kepada sekeliling Struktur Papan Iklan termasuk Kompleks South City Plaza dan The Academia. (e) Gantirugi Am ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan kerugian, kerosakan, perbelanjaan dan kos yang dialami oleh pemilik-pemilik di Kompleks South City Plaza dan The Academia seperti dituntut oleh Plaintif. (f) Defendan membayar Gantirugi Teladan, yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah. (g) Secara Alternatif, jika Defendan telah meneruskan dengan pembinaan struktur papan iklan, Defendan diperintahkan merobohkan struktur papan iklan dengan segera di atas perbelanjaan Defendan sendiri. (h) Defendan diperintahkan membaiki segala kerosakan yang diakibatkan di tapak struktur papan iklan di atas kos Defendan dengan segera. 9 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) Gantirugi Am ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamanh ini berkenaan dengan kerugian, kerosakan, perbelanjaan dan kos yang dialami oleh Plaintif berkenaan dengan perkara di sini. (j) Kos ditanggung oleh Defendan di atas dasar pegumacara dan anakguam. (k) Relif selanjutnya atau apa jua relif yang lain sepertimana Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini menganggap sesuai dan muafaat. [11] The Defendant’s underscored the following facts in its Defence, namely, that: • The approval and the permission (to erect the billboard) that it had received from the Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya and the Kementerian Kerja Raya had expired on 31 December, 2018 and 31 December, 2020 respectively and no application has been made to extend the approval or permission; • The billboard was intended to be located at the back of the South City Plaza complex and not at the main entrance of the said complex; • The intended billboard was meant to be built on land belonging to the government with the requisite permit and has nothing to do with the Plaintiff; and 10 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal • The cause of action based on tort had never occurred and the claim by the Plaintiff was speculative and mala fide. [12] More importantly, the Defendant alluded to the fact that the Plaintiff had also commenced legal proceedings by way of Judicial Review at the High Court on 29 November, 2018 that culminated with the High Court deciding that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the proceedings and that the Defendant had the necessary permits and permissions from the relevant authorities. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 30 October, 2023. Hence, it was the Defendant’s contention that the issues raised in the suit at the Sessions Court have been rendered res judicata. [13] In its counterclaim, the Defendant pleaded and alleged as follows: 37. Defendan Pertama mengulangi perenggan 1–29 Pernyataan Pembelaan. 38. Defendan memplidkan bahawa Plaintif telah mengakibatkan kacau ganggu di dalam perniagaan Defendan. Defendan memplidkan bahawa Plaintif, sekalipun mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan keesaan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut, telah mengambil tindakan ini terhadap Defendan dan mengakibatkan kelewatan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut. 39. Defendan telah mengeluarkan sejumlah wang dan tenaga dalam mendapatkan kelulusan pihak berkuasa dalam membina papan iklan tersebut namun Defendan kini tidak dapat meneruskan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut seperti yang dijadualkan sekalipun telah 11 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal membayar sewa tapak bagi papan iklan tersebut dan kos-kos lain yang berkaitan. BUTIR-BUTIR KOS a) Yuran bagi memohon kelulusan daripada RM400.00 Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya b) Cagaran Permit Sementara RM1120.00 c) Permit Sementara Pembinaan RM 1180.00 d) Sewa Tapak RM 30,000.00 e) konsultan untuk Jurutera Awam & Struktur RM 5,000.00 (Perunding JAS) f) Bayaran Pembinaan Billboard (MNA Billboards RM400,000.00 Services) g) Bayaran Perancang Bandar (SR Consults) RM 5,000.00 40. Defendan memplidkan bahawa segala urusan berkaitan pembinaan papan iklan ini dibuat mengikut prosedur yang tepat dan oleh itu, adalah sah disisi undang- undang dan Defendan tidak seharusnya dihalang daripada membina papan iklan tersebut. 41. Lanjutan daripada kelulusan bagi membina papan iklan tersebut oleh pihak berkuasa, Defendan telah memasuki suatu Perjanjian paparan media bagi papan iklan tersebut untuk sejumlah RM474,000.00. Perjanjian tersebut turut memperuntukkan bahawa Defendan perlu) memulakan pengiklanan pada 15/11/2018, walau bagaimanapun, papan iklan tersebut sehingga kini masih belum boleh dibina berikutan tuntutan Plaintif yang tidak munasabah ini. 12 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42. Defendan oleh itu telah gagal untuk menjalankan kewajipannya di bawah Perjanjian paparan Media tersebut berikutan gangguan oleh Plaintif. 43. Oleh itu, jelas tindakan Plaintif inilah sebenarnya kacau ganggu terhadap perniagaan Defendan. Berikutan itu, Defendan telah mengalami kerugian dan akan terus menanggung kerugian selagi tindakan ini tidak dilupuskan. [14] Resulting from the above, the Defendant sought the following reliefs from the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court: a. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran Sewa Tapak tahun pertama kepada Kementerian Kerja Raya Sebanyak RM30, 000.00 untuk 1 tahun; b. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran cagaran permit sementara (MPSJ) sebanyak RM1,120.00; c. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran permit sementara Pembinaan (MPSJ) sebanyak RM 1,805.00 d. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran bil kebenaran merancang (MPSJ) sebanyak RM400.00 e. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran konsultan untuk Jurutera Awam & Struktur (Perunding JAS) sebanyak RM 5,000.00 13 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal f. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran Pembinaan Billboard sebanyak RM400,000.00 g. Gantirugi khas atas bayaran Perancang Bandar sebanyak RM 5,000.00 h. Gantirugi khas atas kehilangan pendapatan sewaan pengiklanan tahun pertama sebanyak RM474, 000.00 i. Gantirugi am atas kelewatan untuk menyiapkan pembinaan Billboard sebagai mana tempahan media; j. Gantirugi am untuk kemungkinan kontrak / frustrasi kontrak dengan pihak ketiga yang disebabkan oleh Plaintif; k. Gantirugi am atas kehilangan hak penggunaan tanah yang dipajak dan kehilangan perniagaan yang diluluskan. l. Kos yang ditanggung oleh Defendan di atas dasar peguamcara dan anakguam dan m. Relif selanjutnya atau apa jua relif lain yang dianggap suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. 14 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The Decision of the Sessions Court [15] After full trial, the Sessions Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The learned Sessions Court Judge also allowed some of the reliefs by the Defendant in the counterclaim and awarded costs of RM30,000 to the Defendant. The order by the learned Sessions Court Judge reads as follows: Mahkamah memutuskan Tuntutan Plaintif ditolak dengan kos. Berkenaan dengan Tuntutan Balas Defendan, Defendan berjaya membuktikan Tuntutan Balas Defendan untuk Gantirugi Khas dan Gantirugi Am. Plaintif membayar Gantirugi Khas berjumlah RM38,325-00 dan Gantirugi Am berjumlah RM300,000-00 kepada Defendan dengan faedah dan kos. Faedah pada kadar 5% di atas RM338,325-00 dari tarikh pemfailan Writ sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh dan kos berjumlah RM30,000-00. The Present Appeal [16] The Plaintiff has appealed against the entire decision of the Sessions Court to this Court. [17] On the other hand, the Defendant has not appealed against those prayers in its counterclaim that were not allowed. The Parties’ Contention [18] The Appellant/Plaintiff’s contentions may be distilled into the following: 15 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal On the Appellant/Plaintiff’s Main Claim: [19] Central to the Appellant/Plaintiff’s appeal is the argument that the learned Sessions Court Judge has relied on the Judicial Review decision of the High Court is arriving at his findings. This is evident, according to the Appellant/Plaintiff, from paragraphs [20] to [35] of the learned Sessions Court Judge’s grounds of judgment. [20] The main thrust of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s contention is that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in relying on the Judicial Review decision, asserting that the civil suit before the Sessions Court is not identical to the Judicial Review proceedings at the High Court. [21] It was the Appellant/Plaintiff’s contention that it had filed the Judicial Review Proceedings for a Certiorari Order to quash the approval and temporary permit issued by the Kementerian Kerja Raya and the Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya respectively. The Appellant/Plaintiff explained that it had added the Respondent/Defendant in that Judicial Review application so that the Respondent/Defendant was made aware of the said proceedings and no reliefs were sought against the Respondent/Defendant. On the Respondent/Defendant’s counterclaim: [22] It was the Appellant/Plaintiff’s submission that the Respondent/Defendant had not pleaded for general damages in its counterclaim. Reference was made to Order 18 rule 15(2) of the Rules of Court 2012. 16 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [23] As for special damages, the Appellant/Plaintiff averred that: “Gantirugi Khas, meliputi jumlah yang tidak dibuktikan dan berdasarkan dokumen yang ditandakan sebagai ‘Identification Dokumen’. Oleh itu Hakim, Mahkamah Sesyen telah terkhilaf dari sisi fakta-fakta dan prinsip undang-undang”. [24] On the other hand, the Respondent/Defendant’s arguments are premised on the following grounds, namely: (a) Tuntutan Perayu tidak mendedahlan sebarang kausa tindakan yang sah terhadap Responden; (b) Tuntutan Perayu adalah akademik dan tidak wujud; (c) Perayu tidak mewakili penduduk-penduduk kondominium The Academia dan tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk mewakili mereka; (d) Tuntutan Perayu telah res judicata kerana telah dibicarakan di mahkamah tinggi atas isu yang sama; (e) Perayu gagal membuktikan kes mereka terhadap Responden kerana tidak wujud kacau ganggu terhadap Perayu; (f) Saksi yang dikemukakan Perayu bukanlah saksi pakar; (g) Responden berjaya membuktikan kerugian yang ditanggung Responden disebabkan oleh Perayu; 17 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (h) Perayu gagal untuk membuktikan kerugian Responden boleh dikurangkan (mitigate); dan (i) Perayu bertangungan di bawah undang-undang untuk memampas kerugian Responden akibat dari injunksi interim yang difailkan oleh Perayu. [25] Responding to the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim based on “actual or imminent nuisance”, the Respondent/Defendant referred this Court to Projek Lebuh Raya Utara-Selatan Sdn Bhd v Kim Seng Enterprise (Kedah) Sdn Bhd [2013] 6 CLJ 958; [2013] 5 MLJ 360; [2013] 4 MLRA 68 where the Court of Appeal had explicated the types of nuisance in law. The Court of Appeal explained as follows: [123] Next, in regard to nuisance, I have this to say. There are three types of nuisance: private, public and statutory. [124] Private nuisance concerns the unreasonable interference with anothers use or enjoyment of land. In determining what is reasonable, the court will balance each party’s right to use the land as they wish. [125] The elements of the tort of private nuisance are: (a) indirect interference with the enjoyment of the land; (b) that such an interference was unreasonable; and (c) that the interference had caused damage to the claimant. 18 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [126] In regard to the element of interference, it is the duty of the claimant to prove that the defendant has caused an interference with the claimants use or enjoyment of the land. The interference must be as a result of a continuing state of affairs rather than a one-off incident. Examples of physical invasion of the claimants land are found in Davey v. Harrow Corporation [1958] 1 QB 60, where the roots of a neighbours tree spread into the claimants land, or in Sedleigh-Denfield v. OCallaghan and Others [1940] AC 880, where water flooded onto the land as a result of what the neighbour had done, or in Christie v. Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316 where nuisance was caused by a noise, or in Wheelerand Another v. JJ Saunders Ltd and Others [1996] Ch 19, [1995] 2 All ER 697,where the smell caused the nuisance. [127] In regard to the element of unreasonableness, the claimants enjoyment of his land constitutes nuisance if it can be considered unreasonable. An interference which goes beyond the normal bounds of acceptable behaviour will be unreasonable (Southwark London Borough Council v. Mills and Others [1999] 2 WLR 409). [128] In regard to the element of damage, it envisages a situation where the interference must have caused damage to the claimant like the case of The Directors, etc of the St Helens Smelting Company v. William Tipping [1865] 11 HL Cas 642 where the fumes from the copper-smelting works seriously damaged the trees and shrubs that grew on the claimants land. [129] Public nuisance, on the other hand, is a crime and it is dealt with by the Attorney-Generals Chambers through prosecution under the 19 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal criminal law. However, in some cases where the parties who have suffered as a result of a public nuisance may commence a suit in tort. [130] Statutory nuisance concerned those offences under various statutes concerning public health and environmental issues. … [26] The Respondent/Defendant also made reference to the following authorities, namely Ranjan Paramalingam & Anor v Bangsar Park Residents Association [2019] AMEJ 0546; [2019] 8 CLJ 401; [2019] MLJU 409; [2019] MLRHU 595 and Attorney-General v Pya Quarries Ltd [1958] CIV EWCA 1. These cases had discussed the constituent elements in the tort of public nuisance. [27] The argument advanced by the Respondent/Defendant was that the Appellant/Plaintiff has failed to establish that a complete cause of action for the tort of nuisance had arisen. [28] On the ground that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim had been rendered academic, the Respondent/Defendant relied on the decision of the Federal Court in Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd v Fawziah Holdigs Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 AMR 725; [2006] 3 CLJ 177; [2006] 4 MLJ 113; [2006] 1 MLRA 666 and the High Court in Everest Aisvaram Sdn Bhd v Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam [2020] AMEJ 0418; [2020] 7 CLJ 96; [2020] 9 MLJ 545; [2022] 2 MLRH 187. [29] As for the locus standi point, the Respondent/Defendant cited the Federal Court case of Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors and Other Appeals [2023] 4 AMR 221; [2023] 5 20 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal CLJ 167; [2023] 3 MLJ 829; [2023] 4 MLRA 114 where it was held that a management corporation or a joint management body does not possess the capacity to commence legal proceedings because these bodies have not been granted such capacity or power under the statute. The Respondent/Defendant also alluded to the fact that the Court of Appeal has affirmed the locus standi argument when it dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s appeal against the Judicial Review decision. [30] Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 AMR 2559; [1995] 3 CLJ 783; [1995] 3 MLJ 189; [1995] 1 MLRA 611, Government of Malaysia v Dato Chong Kok Lim [1973] CLJU 35; [1973] 2 MLJ 74; [1973] 1 MLRH 318 and Hartecon JV Sdn Bhd & Anor v Hartela Contractors Ltd [1996] 2 AMR 1457; [1997] 2 CLJ 104; [1996] 2 MLJ 57; [1995] 2 MLRA 505 were cited by the Respondent/Defendant to support its res judicata argument. The Decision of this Court [31] In adjudicating this appeal, it is incumbent upon this Court to thoroughly assess its merits. To this end, the Court has meticulously reviewed the appeal records, considered the written submissions, and heard the oral arguments before arriving at a decision. [32] In particular, this Court has carefully examined the learned Sessions Court Judge’s grounds of judgment and the decision of the High Court in the Judicial Review application. 21 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [33] On the Judicial Review decision (see Badan Pengurusan Bersama South City Plaza v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2020] AMEJ 1253; [2020] CLJU 1132); [2020] MLJU 1589; [2021] 2 MLRH 53, the High Court had ruled, inter alia, that (1) the Applicant (the Appellant/Plaintiff in the present appeal) did not have the threshold locus standi in the context of Order 53 rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 to proceed with its Judicial Review application; (2) the court could not issue a certiorari order to quash the Ministry's Approval because – (a) the Ministry's Approval was valid under section 85A(1) and (2) of the Road Transport Act 1987; (b) the Applicant had no right to be heard pursuant to section 85A(1) and (2) of the Road Transport Act 1987 before the Ministry's Approval was issued; and (c) the Third Respondent (the Respondent/Appellant in the present appeal) did not breach any of the Ministry's Conditions (including the Ministry's Procedure). [34] As alluded to in paragraph [12], this Judicial Review decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 30 October, 2023. 22 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [35] In his grounds of judgment, the learned Sessions Court Judge dealt with the issues before the court and provided the reasons for his findings at paragraphs [19] – [70]. Indeed, the Sessions Court made references and relied heavily on the decision of the High Court in the Judicial Review application (which at that time was pending appeal to the Court of Appeal). [36] On the essential issue that is before this Court in this appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the Sessions Court had not acted inappropriately in relying on the earlier Judicial Review decision of the High Court when adjudicating the matter at hand. This is because the issues resolved in the Judicial Review application are identical to those presented in the current suit and appeal. [37] In relation to the the Appellant/Plaintiff’s contention that it had added the Respondent/Defendant in its Judicial Review application so that the Respondent/Defendant was made aware of the said proceedings and no reliefs were sought against the Respondent/Defendant, this Court agrees that an alleged wrongful act may attract different reliefs against different parties and the Appellant/Plaintiff in this case is entitled and at liberty to do so by way of a (albeit unsuccessful) Judicial Review application and the present suit before the Sessions Court. However, the issues brought up in the Judicial Review application are intertwined with those in this suit and as such, the learned Sessions Court Judge was at liberty and had not erred in fact and/or in law when he made reference to and relied heavily on the findings by the High Court in the Judicial Review proceedings. 23 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [38] While the proverbial second bite at the cherry may not be applicable here when the Plaintiff filed the two actions in the Sessions Court and in the High Court, it does not detract from the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to establish its claim against the Defendant. [39] To assess the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim in the most favourable light — that is, to consider its unsuccessful Judicial Review application as distinct from the present suit and appeal — it is evident that the current suit and appeal are patently untenable. This Court is firmly convinced that the Sessions Court did not err in rejecting the Appellant/Plaintiff’s main claim. [40] On the issue of the counterclaim, the learned Sessions Court Judge dealt with this counterclaim and provided the justifications for its findings at paragraphs [72] to [96] of his grounds of judgment. [41] There are two aspects to the counterclaim. The first pertains to the claim for special damages. Upon scrutinizing the available evidence and the reasonings of the Sessions Court, this Court affirms the award made by the Sessions Court under the head of special damages. [42] Regarding the appeal against the award of RM300,000 for general damages in the counterclaim, the Appellant/Plaintiff's assertion that this should be disallowed due to insufficient pleading (in the Defence and Counterclaim) warrants serious consideration. However, upon reviewing the pleadings, this Court finds that this assertion lacks merit. 24 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] The Defendant has pleaded as follows: 38. Defendan memplidkan bahawa Plaintif telah mengakibatkan kacau ganggu didalam perniagaan Defendan. Defendan memplidkan bahawa Plaintif, sekalipun mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan keesaan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut, telah mengambil tindakan ini terhadap Defendan dan mengakibatkan kelewatan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut. 39. Defendan telah mengeluarkan sejumlah wang dan tenaga dalam mendapatkan kelulusan pihak berkuasa dalam membina papan iklan tersebut namun Defendan kini tidak dapat meneruskan pembinaan papan iklan tersebut seperti yang dijadualkan sekalipun telah membayar sewa tapak bagi papan iklan tersebut dan kos-kos lain yang berkaitan. 40. Defendan memplidkan bahawa segala urusan berkaitan pembinaan papan iklan ini dibuat mengikut prosedur yang tepat dan oleh itu, adalah sah disisi undang-undang dan Defendan tidak seharusnya dihalang daripada membina papan iklan tersebut. 41. Lanjutan daripada kelulusan bagi membina papan iklan tersebut oleh pihak berkuasa, Defendan telah memasuki suatu Perjanjian paparan media bagi papan iklan tersebut untuk sejumlah RM474,000.00. Perjanjian tersebut turut memperuntukkan bahawa Defendan perlu memulakan pengiklanan pada 15/11/2018, walaubagaimanapun, papan iklan tersebut sehingga kini masih belum boleh dibina berikutan tuntutan Plaintif yang tidak munasabah ini. 25 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42. Defendan oleh itu telah gagal untuk menjalankan kewajipannya di bawah Perjanjian paparan Media tersebut berikutan gangguan oleh Plaintif. 43. Oleh itu, jelas tindakan Plaintif inilah sebenarnya kacau ganggu terhadap perniagaan Defendan. Berikutan itu, Defendan telah mengalami kerugian dan akan terus menanggung kerugian selagi tindakan ini tidak dilupuskan. The counterclaim has thus been pleaded with sufficient particularity and the Sessions Court was correct and justified in making the awards on the counterclaim. [44] The decision of the Sessions Court is hereby affirmed in its entirety. [45] This appeal is dismissed with costs. The Appellant/Plaintiff to pay costs of RM30,000 to the Respondent/Defendant, subject to allocatur. Dated: 6 June, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam 26 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: Deborah Jaswinder Kaur a/p Sher Singh for the Appellant (Messrs. Soraya Jabid, Deborah & Co.) Mohd Zainuddin bin Omar for the Respondent (Messrs. Zainuddin & Associates) 27 S/N ZfkiTmwAECLnx6ATezv2w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal