Hibiscus International Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Hibiscus International Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Kerajaan Malaysia
• Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Alam Sekitar
• Siti Zaleha Binti Ibrahim

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Datuk Ismail Bin Brahim
• YA Datuk Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

• The appellant/company had three scheduled waste handling licences cancelled on 23.7.2015 by the department's officer without a hearing or show-cause notice, halting its operations; this was later quashed by certiorari for breach of natural justice, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
• Following the quashing order, the respondents declined to return the licences despite repeated requests, and the licences were only physically returned on 5.7.2017.
• In the separate damages action directed by the High Court, the company claimed special, general and exemplary damages; the High Court awarded damages but limited the compensable period to only 8 months and 7 days (the unexpired term of the original licences) rather than the full period of deprivation.

• Whether the High Court erred in restricting the damages period to 8 months and 7 days based on an argument (absence of a mandamus order) that was never pleaded by the respondents but raised only in closing oral submissions.
• Whether an order of certiorari, by itself, operates to restore an affected party to its original position (i.e., as holder of valid subsisting licences) without need for a further mandamus order.
• Whether the High Court erred in its assessment of various heads of special, general and exemplary damages, including the correct measure of loss and whether the conduct of the department's officer justified an exemplary damages award.

• The Court held that the High Court erred in law by permitting and basing its decision on an unpleaded argument raised only in closing submissions, violating the principle that courts and parties are bound by the pleadings; the correct compensable period was 24 months, running from the date of cancellation to the date the licences were actually returned, since certiorari restores the affected party to its pre-cancellation position.
• The Court upheld the rejection of certain speculative or unsubstantiated special damages claims (Factory No. 20, patent/technology fees, maintenance fees, directors' salaries, loss of income from paid-up capital, machinery depreciation) for lack of documentary proof, while recalculating other heads (factory rental, security services, late payment charges, employee salaries) over the correct 24-month period.
• The Court affirmed the general damages award of RM500,000 (rejecting the claim for speculative future earnings loss) and the exemplary damages award of RM300,000, finding the officer's testimony evidencing deliberate intent to disregard court orders met the "outrageous conduct" threshold under Rookes v Barnard; the appeal was allowed in part (revised total judgment of RM1,377,286.49) and the cross-appeal was dismissed.