Perak Integrated Network Services Sdn Bhd v PINS OSC & Maintenance Services Sdn Bhd & Anor

Appellant(s): Perak Integrated Network Services Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Pins Osc & Maintenance Services Sdn Bhd
• Urban Domain Sdn. Bhd.

• YA Dato Rhodzariah binti Bujang
• YA Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh
• YA Dato' Lee Swee Seng

• The second respondent commenced a common-law derivative action on behalf of a joint-venture company against the appellant for breach of management agreements involving the failure to pay maintenance fees for telecommunication towers.
• The High Court delivered a liability judgment in 2013 in favour of the joint-venture company, but the company was subsequently wound up in 2016 before the quantum of damages was assessed.
• During the assessment proceedings, the parties disputed whether the winding up limited the period of liability and whether operational expenses should be deducted from the gross revenue to determine the actual loss of profit.

• Whether the subsequent winding up of a joint-venture company serves as a terminating event that limits the assessment of quantum to the date of the winding-up order.
• Whether the doctrine of *res judicata* or issue estoppel prevents a party from raising the legal effect of a subsequent intervening event during the quantum stage if that event was not raised during the liability appeals.
• Whether a liability judgment must be interpreted contextually to allow for the deduction of all reasonable operational costs and expenses, even if not explicitly listed in the order, to satisfy the compensatory principle of "loss of profit."

• The Court held that the winding up did not limit the assessment period because the appellant’s own breach contributed to the insolvency and the joint-venture company’s operational functions had already been unilaterally assumed by the appellant.
• The Court ruled that *res judicata* did not bar the winding-up argument as the trial was bifurcated; in such cases, the Court may consider subsequent events during the assessment stage to ensure a broad, merits-based justice and prevent an abuse of process.
• The Court allowed the deduction of operational expenses, holding that court orders must be construed purposively in light of the pleadings and the compensatory principle to ensure the injured party is not placed in a better financial position than if the contract had been performed.