CRESTRONICS (M) SDN. BHD. 1. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

CRESTRONICS (M) SDN. BHD. 1. MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

Summary judgment was granted because the 1st Defendant's 29.3.2018 letter was admissible and constituted a clear unilateral undertaking supported by part payment and absence of denial, the 2nd Defendant had a binding settlement agreement evidenced by correspondence, SPA and payments, and neither defendant discharged the burden to show a triable issue; statutory powers under s11 CLA and O42 r12 RC justified awarding interest at 5% per annum from 10.12.2017 until payment.

Citation
BA-25-33-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: CONCRETE ENGINEERING PRODUCTS BHD.; 1st Defendant: CCCC SIXTH ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD.; 2nd Defendant: YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 January 2020
Case Number
BA-25-33-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Debt/contract / Summary Judgment (enc. 16)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against both Defendants
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Letter of Undertaking, Settlement Agreement, Summary Judgment, Pre Judgment Interest, Indemnity Claim
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Without Prejudice Privilege Letter of Undertaking Settlement Agreement +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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CONCRETE ENGINEERING PRODUCTS BHD.

Plaintiff

CCCC SIXTH ENGINEERING (M) SDN. BHD.

1st Defendant

YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Debt/contract / Summary Judgment (enc. 16)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant's letter dated 29.3.2018 is protected by without prejudice privilege and inadmissible
  2. 2 If admissible, whether the 1st Defendant's 29.3.2018 letter constitutes a unilateral undertaking to pay
  3. 3 Whether there is a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant obliging payment

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was granted because the 1st Defendant's 29.3.2018 letter was admissible and constituted a clear unilateral undertaking supported by part payment and absence of denial, the 2nd Defendant had a binding settlement agreement evidenced by correspondence, SPA and payments, and neither defendant discharged the burden to show a triable issue; statutory powers under s11 CLA and O42 r12 RC justified awarding interest at 5% per annum from 10.12.2017 until payment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against both Defendants

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiff RM4,873,248.31
  • Defendants to pay interest at 5% per annum on RM4,873,248.31 from 10.12.2017 until full payment