SSP SUPPLY SDN BHD BUKIT FRASER THERMAL TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUKIT FRASER ENGINEERING SDN BHD)

SSP SUPPLY SDN BHD BUKIT FRASER THERMAL TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUKIT FRASER ENGINEERING SDN BHD)

The appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court's summary judgment was upheld because the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: invoices and an earlier letter established the agreed 1.5% monthly interest and the defendant's acknowledgement of the debt; the 'without prejudice' label was inapplicable because the correspondence did not arise from settlement negotiations; and the bare allegation of non‑registration under the Sales Tax Act did not show illegality affecting enforceability of the transaction.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-33-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bukit Fraser Thermal Technology Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: SSP Supply Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-33-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Summary Judgment (civil) / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of the Sessions Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Sales Tax Act 2018 Registration, Interest on Overdue Accounts, Without Prejudice Correspondence, Enforceability/public Policy
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Tax Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Sales Tax Act 2018 Registration Interest on Overdue Accounts Without Prejudice Correspondence +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bukit Fraser Thermal Technology Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

SSP Supply Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Summary Judgment (civil) / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is unenforceable for breach of the Sales Tax Act 2018/public policy
  2. 2 Whether a letter marked 'without prejudice' could be admitted as evidence
  3. 3 Whether the 1.5% per month interest charge was agreed or a triable issue

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court's summary judgment was upheld because the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: invoices and an earlier letter established the agreed 1.5% monthly interest and the defendant's acknowledgement of the debt; the 'without prejudice' label was inapplicable because the correspondence did not arise from settlement negotiations; and the bare allegation of non‑registration under the Sales Tax Act did not show illegality affecting enforceability of the transaction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of the Sessions Court upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Summary judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of RM176,692.04 with interest at 1.5% per month.