ISMAIL BIN OTHMAN 1. ) DUTA SKYLINE SDN. BHD. 2. ) AMAZING SYMPHONY SDN BHD

ISMAIL BIN OTHMAN 1. ) DUTA SKYLINE SDN. BHD. 2. ) AMAZING SYMPHONY SDN BHD

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they suffered actual compensable loss caused by the interlocutory injunctions; the joint venture was shown to have terminated or not proceeded, payments and implementation steps were not evidenced, and the expert evidence for lost development profit was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-24NCC-122-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ismail bin Othman; 1st Defendant: Duta Skyline Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Amazing Symphony Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Case Number
BA-24NCC-122-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Assessment of Damages (contract/joint Venture) / Judgment on Assessment of Damages (post Appeal)
Outcome
Both defendants' applications for assessment of damages dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Agreement, Interlocutory Injunction, Assessment of Damages, Loss of Development Profit, Expert Evidence
Contract Company Law Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Evidence Joint Venture Agreement Interlocutory Injunction Assessment of Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ismail bin Othman

Plaintiff

Duta Skyline Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Amazing Symphony Sdn Bhd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Assessment of Damages (contract/joint Venture) / Judgment on Assessment of Damages (post Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant's claim for contractual interest/damages caused by interlocutory injunction is maintainable
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to claim loss of development profit and whether such loss is proved
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence relied upon is admissible and sufficiently probative to establish speculative future losses

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they suffered actual compensable loss caused by the interlocutory injunctions; the joint venture was shown to have terminated or not proceeded, payments and implementation steps were not evidenced, and the expert evidence for lost development profit was speculative and unsupported; therefore the assessment applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both defendants' applications for assessment of damages dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applications by the 1st and 2nd defendants for assessment of damages are dismissed with costs.