CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT :464072-W) MIED CAPITAL SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 650458-A)

CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT :464072-W) MIED CAPITAL SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 650458-A)

The appeal is dismissed because (1) there was no contractual privity between plaintiff (sub-contractor) and defendant (employer), rendering the claim unsustainable; (2) the claim is estopped by res judicata from prior litigation against the main contractor; and (3) the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, such that the Sessions Court's order to set aside the writ was correct and should be upheld.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-267-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Conlay Construction Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/defendant: Mied Capital Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-267-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Res Judicata, Limitation Period (time Bar), Summary Disposal Under O.18 R.19, Fiduciary Duty and Constructive Trust, Irrevocable Authorization
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Limitation Trusts and Fiduciary Law Estoppel/res Judicata Privity of Contract Res Judicata Limitation Period (time Bar) +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conlay Construction Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/plaintiff

Mied Capital Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court judge erred in allowing defendant's application to set aside the writ and statement of claim under O.18 r.19
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff had any contractual relationship (privity) with defendant
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res judicata estops the plaintiff from re-litigating the same cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because (1) there was no contractual privity between plaintiff (sub-contractor) and defendant (employer), rendering the claim unsustainable; (2) the claim is estopped by res judicata from prior litigation against the main contractor; and (3) the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, such that the Sessions Court's order to set aside the writ was correct and should be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to respondent subject to fi alokatur
  • Order of the Sessions Court dated 29.9.2020 to set aside the writ and statement of claim and award costs RM3,000.00 affirmed