1. INFINIA SERVICES SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 722629-A) 2. ABDUL RAHIM BIN JAAFAR (NO. KP SINGAPURA: S00369201) 1. AIANS AUTO ENGINEERING SDN. BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 986462-U)

1. INFINIA SERVICES SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 722629-A) 2. ABDUL RAHIM BIN JAAFAR (NO. KP SINGAPURA: S00369201) 1. AIANS AUTO ENGINEERING SDN. BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 986462-U)

Appeal dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly applied law and fact: defendants were under an express judgment obligation to return the forklifts, the replacement values and loss of use were supported by uncontroverted market quotations and rental evidence, and interest and costs were statutorily permissible at assessment; appellants failed to meet the heavy onus to demonstrate a legal error or plainly unreasonable award.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-141-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: INFINIA SERVICES SDN BHD; Appellant: ABDUL RAHIM BIN JAAFAR; Respondent: AIANS AUTO ENGINEERING SDN. BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2020
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-141-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Assessment of Damages / Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Conversion, Detinue, Assessment of Damages, Pre Judgment Interest, Costs, Appeal Standard on Quantum
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Civil Procedure Remedies Conversion Detinue Assessment of Damages Pre Judgment Interest Costs +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INFINIA SERVICES SDN BHD

Appellant

ABDUL RAHIM BIN JAAFAR

Appellant

AIANS AUTO ENGINEERING SDN. BHD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Assessment of Damages / Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were obliged to return the forklifts and liable for conversion/detinue
  2. 2 Whether replacement price awarded was reasonable and properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether loss of use/rental claims were recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the Sessions Court correctly applied law and fact: defendants were under an express judgment obligation to return the forklifts, the replacement values and loss of use were supported by uncontroverted market quotations and rental evidence, and interest and costs were statutorily permissible at assessment; appellants failed to meet the heavy onus to demonstrate a legal error or plainly unreasonable award.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs