TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD JUTA TARAF CONCRETE PRODUCTS SDN BHD

TURNPIKE SYNERGY SDN BHD JUTA TARAF CONCRETE PRODUCTS SDN BHD

The appellate court upheld the trial judge: documentary evidence and letters established that Second Defendant agreed to the direct payment arrangement and Plaintiff refrained from suing First Defendant on that assurance (forbearance), therefore Second Defendant is legally liable to pay the outstanding RM200,000; the winding up of the contractor did not defeat the direct payment arrangement nor require payment to JIM in these circumstances.

Citation
BA-12BNCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/defendan Kedua: Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd; Responden/plaintif: Juta Taraf Concrete Products Sdn Bhd; Defendan Pertama: Generasi Nirwana Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Case Number
BA-12BNCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forbearance to Sue, Estoppel, Guarantee/assumpsit, Appellate Review of Factual Findings, Payment Arrangements on Winding Up
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Forbearance to Sue Estoppel Guarantee/assumpsit Appellate Review of Factual Findings +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd

Perayu/defendan Kedua

Juta Taraf Concrete Products Sdn Bhd

Responden/plaintif

Generasi Nirwana Sdn Bhd

Defendan Pertama

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Second Defendant (Turnpike) is liable to pay outstanding RM200,000 to Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether Second Defendant expressly or impliedly agreed to pay the outstanding sum to Plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether forbearance to sue/estoppel created a cause of action against Second Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court upheld the trial judge: documentary evidence and letters established that Second Defendant agreed to the direct payment arrangement and Plaintiff refrained from suing First Defendant on that assurance (forbearance), therefore Second Defendant is legally liable to pay the outstanding RM200,000; the winding up of the contractor did not defeat the direct payment arrangement nor require payment to JIM in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Perayu to pay costs of RM7000.00 subject to fi alokatur