26 May 2025
The High Court held it had jurisdiction to decide quantum under the Notice of Appeal and the Court of Appeal remittal; it found no error in the Sessions Court's evaluation of evidence or the methodology for assessing damages and therefore refused to disturb the awards, confirming all heads and the amounts awarded.
2 Dec 2024
Appeal allowed in part: because the neurosurgery expert attended in person on subpoena and was ready to give evidence, the Sessions Court judge should have permitted the expert to give evidence (or allowed oral evidence) despite late filing of the witness statement; the appropriate remedy is remittal to the same Sessions Court judge to hear the neurosurgery expert's evidence and for the judge to reconsider injuries and quantum in light of that evidence, with liberty for parties to make further submissions and to file fresh appeals if dissatisfied.
29 May 2024
The court held that the reassessment of damages was confined to evidence already adduced at the original trial; the plaintiff failed to prove actual loss or quantum for the claimed RM5.85 million (and prior settlement/compromise undermined the claim), therefore only nominal damages were appropriate: RM50,000 against Defendant First and RM50,000 jointly against Defendants Second and Third.
14 Mar 2024
The appeal was allowed because the defendants demonstrated bona fide triable issues (alleged defects, inadequate compressive strength testing results, prompt complaints, partial rectification by plaintiff and alleged breach of the Sale of Goods Act) which made it inappropriate to decide the matter summarily; consequently the summary judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with costs ordered against the plaintiff.
1 Mar 2023
The preliminary objection was dismissed because the Respondent's cross-appeal was a permissible procedural device to preserve its rights vis-a-vis the third parties in the event the Appellants succeeded, no party was prejudiced, the Court of Appeal may exercise its wide powers under s.69 CJA to hear all parties and do substantive justice, and the Appellants' late challenge was barred by delay under r.103 RCA 1994.