Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD

Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD

On the evidence of parties' conduct, witness testimony and documentary/email material the Plaintiff established that services were performed and accepted by the Defendant and that the Defendant owed RM95,400.00; the trial magistrate’s adverse factual findings were disturbed because they were plainly wrong or reflected insufficient appreciation of the evidence, justifying appellate intervention.

Citation
BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (perayu): Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant (responden): Metalglaz Technology (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Case Number
BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal (judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decision of the learned Magistrate set aside. Judgment entered for Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Burden of Proof, Acceptance by Conduct, Appellate Intervention / Plainly Wrong Test, Presumptions Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Appellate Review Oral Contract Burden of Proof Acceptance by Conduct Appellate Intervention / Plainly Wrong Test +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff (perayu)

Metalglaz Technology (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant (responden)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal (judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant ordered and requested the Plaintiff to perform the services for the MRT S8 Bandar Kajang project
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff performed the services and the Defendant received those services between 2015 and 2016
  3. 3 Whether the parties agreed that the Defendant would pay for the services rendered

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence of parties' conduct, witness testimony and documentary/email material the Plaintiff established that services were performed and accepted by the Defendant and that the Defendant owed RM95,400.00; the trial magistrate’s adverse factual findings were disturbed because they were plainly wrong or reflected insufficient appreciation of the evidence, justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decision of the learned Magistrate set aside. Judgment entered for Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Magistrate's judgment set aside
  • Judgment for Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd against Metalglaz Technology (M) Sdn Bhd in the sum of RM95,400.00