CAHAYA BERLIAN SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 742437-K) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

CAHAYA BERLIAN SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 742437-K) DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

The Court of Appeal held that the profit element was embedded in the BQ and thus within the parties' contemplation at contract formation; the High Court erred in wholly rejecting the appellant's loss of profit claim without properly considering SD1's corroborative admissions and the inherent probability of SP1's evidence. While expert evidence SP2 was rightly rejected, the appellate court awarded a compensatory loss of profit at 10% of the Contract Sum, less the First Progress Payment, yielding RM299,913.83, and ordered costs.

Citation
W-01(C)(W)-753-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Cahaya Berlian Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Case Number
W-01(C)(W)-753-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Assessment of Damages Following High Court Liability Finding
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court decision varied on quantum of damages
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Loss of Profits, Assessment of Quantum, Forfeiture of Retention, Expert Evidence Credibility, Plainly Wrong Standard
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Damages Law Public Procurement Wrongful Termination Loss of Profits Assessment of Quantum Forfeiture of Retention +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cahaya Berlian Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Assessment of Damages Following High Court Liability Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant proved loss of profit causally resulting from respondent's wrongful termination
  2. 2 Whether appellant's proof of a 30% profit margin was sufficiently supported and admissible
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in rejecting corroborative evidence (SD1) and expert evidence (SP2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the profit element was embedded in the BQ and thus within the parties' contemplation at contract formation; the High Court erred in wholly rejecting the appellant's loss of profit claim without properly considering SD1's corroborative admissions and the inherent probability of SP1's evidence. While expert evidence SP2 was rightly rejected, the appellate court awarded a compensatory loss of profit at 10% of the Contract Sum, less the First Progress Payment, yielding RM299,913.83, and ordered costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court decision varied on quantum of damages

Orders

  • Awarded RM299,913.83 to appellant as loss of profit (10% of Contract Sum less First Progress Payment)
  • Ordered costs of RM18,000.00 to appellant here and below, payable subject to Allocatur