EMEC PACKAGING SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. 1. ) SEMANGAT DELEGASI SDN. BHD. 2. ) RINGGIT GATE MARKETING SDN. BHD.

EMEC PACKAGING SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. 1. ) SEMANGAT DELEGASI SDN. BHD. 2. ) RINGGIT GATE MARKETING SDN. BHD.

On the balance of probabilities the Court found a binding contract formed by conduct: Plaintiff delivered machines, Defendant 2 acknowledged receipt (signed/stamped delivery documents), Plaintiff received and banked RM88,000 in cheques in its favour, and Defendants failed to rebut or prove payment to or contract with Cerafill or produce material witnesses; therefore Defendants liable for outstanding RM132,000 and counterclaim lacked evidence and failed.

Citation
BL-A52NCC-29-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: EMEC PACKAGING SOLUTIONS SDN BHD; Defendant 1: SEMANGAT DELEGASI SDN BHD; Defendant 2: RINGGIT GATE MARKETING SDN BHD
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 December 2024
Case Number
BL-A52NCC-29-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Contract / Debt Recovery / Judgment After Full Trial (sessions Court); Appeal to High Court Pending
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Unsigned Contracts, Delivery and Acceptance of Goods, Partial Performance and Payment, Burden of Proof, Abuse of Process / Malicious Prosecution
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Evidence Tort (malicious Prosecution) Enforceability of Unsigned Contracts Delivery and Acceptance of Goods Partial Performance and Payment +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EMEC PACKAGING SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Plaintiff

SEMANGAT DELEGASI SDN BHD

Defendant 1

RINGGIT GATE MARKETING SDN BHD

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Contract / Debt Recovery / Judgment After Full Trial (sessions Court); Appeal to High Court Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties for the 2020 machinery purchase
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff delivered the machinery and the Defendants accepted delivery
  3. 3 Whether RM132,000 remained outstanding and payable to the Plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court found a binding contract formed by conduct: Plaintiff delivered machines, Defendant 2 acknowledged receipt (signed/stamped delivery documents), Plaintiff received and banked RM88,000 in cheques in its favour, and Defendants failed to rebut or prove payment to or contract with Cerafill or produce material witnesses; therefore Defendants liable for outstanding RM132,000 and counterclaim lacked evidence and failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff for the outstanding sum of RM132000.00 against the First and Second Defendants
  • Defendants' counterclaim for malicious prosecution and abuse of process dismissed