ASIA GROUP SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 202054-U) WORTHY BUILDERS SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 248077-U)

ASIA GROUP SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 202054-U) WORTHY BUILDERS SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 248077-U)

The trial judge’s findings that the plaintiff breached the subcontract (failed to launch 19 T‑Beams and issued invoices inconsistent with the purchase orders), that the parties agreed a direct payment by PSSB which discharged the defendant, and that an adverse inference was warranted for non‑attendance of the plaintiff’s key witness were entitled to deference; on that basis the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the Sessions Court decision was affirmed.

Citation
WA-12BNCVC-23-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Asia Group Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/defendant: Worthy Builders Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Case Number
WA-12BNCVC-23-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court (trial on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Sessions Court dated 23 October 2019 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Subcontract, Direct Payment/authorization, Estoppel/acceptance of Third Party Performance, Quantum of Damages, Credibility/inference for Non‑attendance of Witness
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Breach of Subcontract Direct Payment/authorization Estoppel/acceptance of Third Party Performance Quantum of Damages Credibility/inference for Non‑attendance of Witness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asia Group Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/plaintiff

Worthy Builders Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court (trial on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff breached the subcontract by failing to perform 19 T‑Beams and issuing non‑compliant invoices
  2. 2 Whether parties agreed to a direct payment (payment authorization) by PSSB to plaintiff that discharged the defendant
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff overcharged beyond agreed rates and the correct measure of defendant's loss

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s findings that the plaintiff breached the subcontract (failed to launch 19 T‑Beams and issued invoices inconsistent with the purchase orders), that the parties agreed a direct payment by PSSB which discharged the defendant, and that an adverse inference was warranted for non‑attendance of the plaintiff’s key witness were entitled to deference; on that basis the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the Sessions Court decision was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Sessions Court dated 23 October 2019 affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed and Sessions Court decision affirmed.