TANGKAK PREMIX SUPPLIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 838406-W) EMPANGAN MAKMUR SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 270621-P)

TANGKAK PREMIX SUPPLIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 838406-W) EMPANGAN MAKMUR SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 270621-P)

There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant; plaintiff failed to prove delivery by it to defendant and failed to call key witnesses or produce uncontested documents so did not discharge the burden under s101 of the Evidence Act; adverse inference under s114(g) applies; therefore the learned Magistrate's dismissal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
JB-11BNCC-11-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Tangkak Premix Supplies Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant: Empangan Makmur Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
JB-11BNCC-11-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Learned Magistrate affirmed.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Burden of Proof, Delivery of Goods, Failure to Call Witnesses, Adverse Inference
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Burden of Proof Delivery of Goods Failure to Call Witnesses Adverse Inference

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tangkak Premix Supplies Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff

Empangan Makmur Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant
  2. 2 Whether delivery of premixed concrete was made to the defendant by the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether failure to call Saravanavell Enterprise and other signatories was fatal

Ratio Decidendi

There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant; plaintiff failed to prove delivery by it to defendant and failed to call key witnesses or produce uncontested documents so did not discharge the burden under s101 of the Evidence Act; adverse inference under s114(g) applies; therefore the learned Magistrate's dismissal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Learned Magistrate affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs