Mohd Khairi bin Mat Jahya Abdul Rahim bin Sinwan

Mohd Khairi bin Mat Jahya Abdul Rahim bin Sinwan

High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to properly evaluate the affidavits and documentary evidence; invoices produced by defendant were dubious, some predated work or GST rules, and there was no proof invoices were served; payments of RM400,000 were held by defendant for settlement and only RM140,000 forwarded, so no triable defence was established and summary judgment for RM260,000 should be entered against the defendant.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-171-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mohd Khairi bin Mat Jahya; Respondent/defendant: Abdul Rahim bin Sinwan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-171-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Repayment/contract/trust / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court (judgment on Summary Judgment Application)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Stakeholder/trustee Duties, Solicitor's Lien, Summary Judgment (order 14/aturan 14), Appellate Intervention Standard, Costs, Evidential Weight of Affidavits and Documents
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Law Contract Trust Property Law Civil Procedure Professional Negligence/solicitor Client Dispute Stakeholder/trustee Duties Solicitor's Lien +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Khairi bin Mat Jahya

Appellant/plaintiff

Abdul Rahim bin Sinwan

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Repayment/contract/trust / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court (judgment on Summary Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant held the RM400,000 as stakeholder and is liable to repay RM260,000
  2. 2 Whether defendant validly raised triable defences (lien for unpaid legal fees or payments unrelated to settlement) sufficient to defeat summary judgment under Aturan 14(1) KKM 2012
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court erred (plainly wrong) in refusing summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to properly evaluate the affidavits and documentary evidence; invoices produced by defendant were dubious, some predated work or GST rules, and there was no proof invoices were served; payments of RM400,000 were held by defendant for settlement and only RM140,000 forwarded, so no triable defence was established and summary judgment for RM260,000 should be entered against the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside Sessions Court decision refusing summary judgment
  • Summary judgment entered against Respondent in favour of Appellant for RM260000.00