The case of Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling [2022] SGHC 212 concerns an appeal on a simple point of law: when a breach of contract is proven, but not its loss or damage, should the claim be dismissed, or should it be allowed with nominal damages awarded?
The decision below. In the decision below, the District Judge found that the respondent had breached the appellant's employment contract, but that the appellant had not proved loss (at [2]). The District Judge did not award nominal damages to the appellant, but instead dismissed the appellant's claim, relying on LighthouseCarrwood Ltd v Luckett [2007] EWHC 2866 (QB) ('LighthouseCarrwood') (at [3]).
The appeal. On appeal, Chua Lee Ming J ('Chua J') agreed with the appellant that the District Judge's decision was wrong as a matter of law, because (at [5]):
- The innocent party's entitlement to claim for damages is as of right, for loss resulting from breach of contract
- Recovery of substantial damages requires proof of such loss
- If the fact of damage or quantum of loss is not proven, only nominal damages may be awarded
Actionable per se. Chua J cited Butterworths Common Law Series: The Law of Damages (Andrew Tettenborn gen ed) (LexisNexis, 2nd Ed, 2010) to explain this position (at [6]).
In gist, a breach of contract is actionable per se. This stands in contrast with, for example, tort law, which requires proof of loss. As such, ' any infringement [i.e., breach of contract] is automatically wrongful, and damages are available as of right whether or not any loss is suffered ' if no other recoverable loss is proved, the claimant still has a right to nominal...
