JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was an appeal against the compensation awarded by the High Court to the Appellant, whose property was compulsorily acquired by the Respondent under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("Land Acquisition Act") for a road project.
The Factual Background
[2] The case concerned the compulsory acquisition by the Respondent of 452 square meters from a larger parcel of land owned by the Appellant in Penang.
[3] The Respondent had initially awarded compensation of RM1 million to the Appellant based on a valuation of RM2,212.39 per square meter. Dissatisfied, the Appellant contested this in the High Court, arguing for a significantly higher market value of approximately RM4,377.62 per square meter, which it claimed was supported by its valuer's report, who used different comparable transactions.
[4] During the proceedings at the High Court, two assessors were appointed to assist the learned High Court Judge ("the Assessors"). Their written opinions ("the Written Opinions") were pivotal to the final decision of the learned High Court Judge, who had increased the compensation to RM2,450.00 per square meter.
[5] The learned High Court Judge had, therefore, allowed the Appellant's application in part, increasing the total compensation from RM1 million to RM1,200,400.00, but rejected the Appellant's claim for the higher rate of RM4,377.62 per square meter.
[6] The Appellant, dissatisfied, appealed to this Court ("this Appeal").
The Issues
[7] Although the Appellant had advanced numerous grounds of appeal, including constitutional objections under art 13 of the Federal Constitution and challenges to the valuation methodology adopted, we were of the considered view that this Appeal ultimately turned on a single, determinative issue, namely, whether the learned High Court Judge had erred in failing to provide the Parties with the Written Opinions.