SHAH ALAM: The High Court has ordered the Shah Alam City Council to pay RM50,000 in general damages for unauthorised enforcement action taken 12 years ago against a company providing reflexology and aromatherapy services.
Judicial commissioner Jamhirah Ali, tasked with conducting the assessment of damages after the council lost its final appeal in the Federal Court in 2017, however, dismissed Only One Foot Reflexology Sdn Bhd’s claim for special damages.
Jamhirah said the company was also entitled to interest at 5% per annum on the judgment sum calculated from yesterday until the date it is paid in full.
Jamhirah also awarded the company RM10,000 in costs.
Lawyer R Kengadharan appeared for the company while counsel Azmer Saad and Nur Zalikha Noor Kashfi represented the council.
In its statement of claim filed on Dec 21, 2011, the company said it had obtained a licence from the council on March 11, 2009, to offer reflexology and aromatherapy services on its premises at Jalan Anggerik Vanilla in Kota Kemuning.
The council’s approval letter dated March 12, 2009 enclosed a list of conditions which the company had to comply with.
These conditions included provisions relating specifically to massage rooms and prohibitions against alcohol, smoking, gambling and any form of violent or immoral activity.
It was also a condition that the licence had to be clearly displayed. Its licence was renewed in 2011.
On April 25, 2011, a team of enforcement officers from the council raided and searched the company’s premises.
In the course of the raid and seizure, council officers also detained several female employees who were from China and Myanmar. They were taken to the city council’s premises, pending checks with the immigration department.
The employees were released after the department confirmed that their work permits were valid.
Several mattresses were seized and the company was issued two compound fines which it settled.
As a result of the raid and seizure, the company said it suffered losses between RM1,000 and RM1,500 a day between April 25, 2011 and May 4, 2011.
It said the enforcement action carried out was not authorised by the Local Government Proceedings Act 1976 or its bylaws, and was therefore unlawful.
The High Court found that the terms of the licence did not expressly prohibit the services provided by the company.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the council’s appeal on Aug 25, 2015.
The council then obtained leave of the Federal Court on June 23, 2016, to pursue the case, but a five-member bench of the apex court dismissed its final appeal on Jan 10, 2017.
The apex court then referred the case to the Shah Alam High Court for assessment of damages. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.