PRESTARIANG SKIN SDN BHD UNIQUE CENTRAL SDN BHD

PRESTARIANG SKIN SDN BHD UNIQUE CENTRAL SDN BHD

The Contract Documents (purchase order, delivery orders, invoices, UATs) unequivocally identified the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as contracting parties; the 2nd defendant was not named, the plaintiff's oral evidence conflicted with those contemporaneous documents and thus could not be used to impose liability on the 2nd defendant under ss.91–92 Evidence Act 1950; accordingly the Sessions Court's finding of liability against the 2nd defendant was erroneous and was overturned on appeal.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant; 2nd Defendant: Prestariang Skin Sdn Bhd; Respondent; Plaintiff (sessions Court): Unique Central Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Prestariang Tech Services Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Sessions Court dated 11 March 2022 set aside.
Legal Topics
Contracting Parties, Contract Formation, Parol Evidence Rule, Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Contracting Parties Contract Formation Parol Evidence Rule Appellate Review

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestariang Skin Sdn Bhd

Appellant; 2nd Defendant

Unique Central Sdn Bhd

Respondent; Plaintiff (sessions Court)

Prestariang Tech Services Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant was a party to the contract for the Works and thus liable for the outstanding amount
  2. 2 Whether contemporaneous documentary evidence precludes admission of oral evidence that contradicts the written contract (parol evidence rule)
  3. 3 Whether appellate intervention was justified to overturn the trial judge's finding

Ratio Decidendi

The Contract Documents (purchase order, delivery orders, invoices, UATs) unequivocally identified the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as contracting parties; the 2nd defendant was not named, the plaintiff's oral evidence conflicted with those contemporaneous documents and thus could not be used to impose liability on the 2nd defendant under ss.91–92 Evidence Act 1950; accordingly the Sessions Court's finding of liability against the 2nd defendant was erroneous and was overturned on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Sessions Court dated 11 March 2022 set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 11 March 2022 is set aside.