SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN K.H KHOON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

SARASWATHI A/P NADARAJAN K.H KHOON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

The Defence was struck out because on the face of the pleadings it was plain and obvious that (1) there was no contractual term requiring Architect's Certificates to support progress bills, (2) the Defendant admitted and made payments (including after service of the writ) which constitute admissions of liability, and (3) estoppel in favour of the Defendant was not established; accordingly the Order 18 r 19 summary procedure was properly applied and the Sessions Court's striking out and judgment against the Defendant was affirmed.

Citation
PA-12A-25-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Saraswathi a/p Nadarajan; Respondent/plaintiff: K.H. Khoon Construction Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Case Number
PA-12A-25-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / High Court Rehearing of Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Order 18 Rule 19 Striking Out, Summary Judgment (order 14), Estoppel, Architect's Certificate Requirement, Admission by Payment
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Order 18 Rule 19 Striking Out Summary Judgment (order 14) Estoppel Architect's Certificate Requirement Admission by Payment

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saraswathi a/p Nadarajan

Appellant/defendant

K.H. Khoon Construction Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / High Court Rehearing of Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence that progress bills required Architect's Certificates is tenable
  2. 2 Whether payments made (including after service of writ) constitute admission of debt
  3. 3 Whether estoppel or waiver bars the Plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Defence was struck out because on the face of the pleadings it was plain and obvious that (1) there was no contractual term requiring Architect's Certificates to support progress bills, (2) the Defendant admitted and made payments (including after service of the writ) which constitute admissions of liability, and (3) estoppel in favour of the Defendant was not established; accordingly the Order 18 r 19 summary procedure was properly applied and the Sessions Court's striking out and judgment against the Defendant was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sessions Court's striking out of the Defence and judgment against the Defendant affirmed