BRAND ACE SDN BHD 1. ) RAPID RAIL SDN. BHD. 2. ) PRASARANA INTEGRATED DEV. SDN. BHD.

BRAND ACE SDN BHD 1. ) RAPID RAIL SDN. BHD. 2. ) PRASARANA INTEGRATED DEV. SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff failed to discharge evidentiary burden to prove alleged interferences or losses and failed to achieve contractual KPI; defendants validly exercised express contractual right to terminate under Clause 10.3.1; accordingly plaintiff's claim and defendants' counterclaim dismissed for want of proof.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Brand Ace Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant 1: Rapid Rail Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant 2: Prasarana Integrated Development Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 May 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Termination Clause, Breach of Contract, Key Performance Indicators, Performance Bond, Exclusive Rights, Burden of Proof, Contract Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence Law Termination Clause Breach of Contract Key Performance Indicators Performance Bond Exclusive Rights +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brand Ace Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Rapid Rail Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant 1

Prasarana Integrated Development Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants unlawfully interfered with plaintiff's contractual rights
  2. 2 Whether limitations outside plaintiff's control hampered performance
  3. 3 Whether defendants adopted plaintiff's proposals after termination

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to discharge evidentiary burden to prove alleged interferences or losses and failed to achieve contractual KPI; defendants validly exercised express contractual right to terminate under Clause 10.3.1; accordingly plaintiff's claim and defendants' counterclaim dismissed for want of proof.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed
  • Defendants' counterclaim dismissed