E & L ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. EXCELJAYA ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

E & L ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. EXCELJAYA ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

On the balance of probabilities the written 12.5.2017 profit‑sharing agreement was valid and binding: it was supported by consideration, was not shown to have been procured by duress or actionable misrepresentation, the defendant's denial and alternative pleas were late and unproven, and documentary and witness...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-B52NCvC-289-07/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: E&L ENGINEERING SDN BHD; Defendant: EXCELJAYA ENGINEERING SDN BHD
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2023
Case Number
WA-B52NCvC-289-07/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/debt) / Appeal Judgment on Defendant's Appeal Against Trial Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judgment in favour of plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Consideration, Misrepresentation, Duress/undue Influence, Breach of Profit Sharing Agreement, Quantum, Interest, Costs
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Restitution/unjust Enrichment Consideration Misrepresentation Duress/undue Influence Breach of Profit Sharing Agreement +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E&L ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Plaintiff

EXCELJAYA ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/debt) / Appeal Judgment on Defendant's Appeal Against Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 12.5.2017 profit‑sharing agreement was valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether there was lawful consideration for the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was procured by misrepresentation or duress/undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the written 12.5.2017 profit‑sharing agreement was valid and binding: it was supported by consideration, was not shown to have been procured by duress or actionable misrepresentation, the defendant's denial and alternative pleas were late and unproven, and documentary and witness evidence established that Jaks paid RM755,078.88 of which 70% (RM528,555.21) is due to plaintiff; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed with interest at 5% per annum from 4.9.2019 until full settlement and costs on the standard scale.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judgment in favour of plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff RM528,555.21 (sum due as at 3.9.2019)
  • Defendant to pay interest on that sum at 5% per annum from 4.9.2019 until full settlement