Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd [No. Syarikat: 201201043136 (1027612-A)] Sky Venture Management Sdn Bhd [No. Syarikat: 201001016954 (900657-T)]

Hyundai Elevator Sales & Services Sdn Bhd [No. Syarikat: 201201043136 (1027612-A)] Sky Venture Management Sdn Bhd [No. Syarikat: 201001016954 (900657-T)]

Court found on affidavit evidence and exhibits that a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and defendant (WKK-1, WKK-2, WKK-3), the defendant failed to rebut those facts, there was no effective settlement or payment by the alleged third party so s.42 did not apply, and therefore the plaintiff established a prima facie case entitling it to summary judgment for RM249,097.50 plus 5% interest from 5.6.2020; the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the Order 14 application.

Citation
DA-12ANCVC-2-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu / Plaintif: HYUNDAI ELEVATOR SALES & SERVICES SDN BHD; Responden / Defendan: SKY VENTURE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 July 2021
Case Number
DA-12ANCVC-2-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Refusal of Summary Judgment Under Order 14 (kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012) / High Court Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Summary Judgment (order 14), Section 42 Contracts Act 1950, Acceptance of Third Party Performance, Interest on Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Privity of Contract Summary Judgment (order 14) Section 42 Contracts Act 1950 Acceptance of Third Party Performance Interest on Judgment

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

Parties

HYUNDAI ELEVATOR SALES & SERVICES SDN BHD

Perayu / Plaintif

SKY VENTURE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Responden / Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Refusal of Summary Judgment Under Order 14 (kaedah Kaedah Mahkamah 2012) / High Court Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant
  2. 2 Whether a settlement or promise by a third party (BCSB) discharged the defendant's contractual liability (s.42 Contracts Act 1950)
  3. 3 Whether there existed a bona fide triable issue preventing summary judgment under Order 14

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on affidavit evidence and exhibits that a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and defendant (WKK-1, WKK-2, WKK-3), the defendant failed to rebut those facts, there was no effective settlement or payment by the alleged third party so s.42 did not apply, and therefore the plaintiff established a prima facie case entitling it to summary judgment for RM249,097.50 plus 5% interest from 5.6.2020; the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the Order 14 application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 to the plaintiff, subject to fi allocator
  • Plaintiff granted leave to enter final judgment against defendant in the sum of RM249,097.50