Court proposes for Awal, Scha to settle dispute with D'Haja via mediation

D'Haja had filed an appeal to set aside the decision by the Sessions Court here which ruled in favour of Awal, whose real name is Ahmad Awaluddin Ashaari and Scha (Sharifah Nor Azean Syed Mahadzir) against the company over an alleged breach of contract with regard to the exclusive rights to distribute the 'Bleu' and 'Maroon' branded perfumes.

Lawyer Datuk Hasnal Rezua Merican who represented D'Haja told reporters that Judicial Commissioner Datuk Seri Latifah Mohd Tahar had asked both parties to discuss the best way to resolve the issue.

"The mediation process will be conducted at the High Court Mediation Centre here, and if the parties fail to reach a settlement, D'Haja's appeal hearing will be resumed on Nov 17," he said, adding that the date for the mediation process will be set later.

The High Court had previously set for D’Haja’s appeal to set aside the Sessions Court decision made on March 27, 2019, to be heard today.

Meanwhile, Awal and Scha's lawyer, Azlan Abdul Razak, when met by reporters also confirmed that there was a proposal from the court for the parties to try to find a solution, and his clients were open to resolving the case through mediation.

Hasnal Rezua said his client had appealed the decision on April 3, 2019, on the grounds that the Sessions Court Judge had erred in awarding damages to the celebrity couple.

The couple was awarded RM345,305 in damages after winning its suit against D'Haja over the alleged breach of contract.

The Sessions Court also allowed a counter-claim filed by D'Haja and ordered Awal and Scha to pay RM55,000, after finding that the couple had broken the agreement by selling the perfume themselves to Brunei.

In the suit filed on April 30, 2018, Awal and Scha claimed that they had entered into a contract with textile supplier D’Haja for the exclusive distribution of Bleu and Maroon perfumes on Oct 11, 2016, for two years.

However, they claimed that D'Haja failed to fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the basic terms of the agreement, apart from failing to return 3,215 bottles of perfume which were said to be damaged, as well as failing to provide records of sales transactions and refusing to pay for the losses.