標籤: Special Damages

LEGAL UPDATES – CONTRACT – PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE – APPELLATE REVIEW – ADDITIONAL WORK, YOU ASKED FOR IT, YOU PAY FOR IT: COURT ORDERS PAYMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WORKS

Can an employer refuse to pay for additional works after requesting and benefiting from them? In Samudera Wibawa Sdn Bhd v Prudence Energy Sdn Bhd [2026] 10 MLJ 229, the High Court said no. The Court held that contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, quotations and invoices clearly established that the additional works had been requested and approved, entitling the contractor to payment. The decision also reaffirms that a party cannot rely on its own conduct to avoid contractual obligations, and that claims for special damages must be strictly proved with proper evidence.

LEGAL UPDATES – TORT – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – GRIEF IS NOT A GROUND FOR A HIGHER AWARD IN BIRTH INJURY CASES

Can damages be increased simply because the consequences of medical negligence are tragic? In Kerajaan Malaysia dan lain-lain v Nirwana Tamba [2026] 10 MLJ 24, the High Court held that they cannot. Although the plaintiff suffered devastating physical and psychological injuries and tragically lost her child, the Court reaffirmed that damages must be based on legal principles and evidence, not sympathy. Finding that the awards for pain and suffering, aggravated damages and costs were already within the accepted judicial range, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cross-appeal and further held that claims for out-of-pocket litigation expenses must be specifically pleaded and proved.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.