Kerajaan Malaysia PDS TRAINING CAMP SDN BHD

Kerajaan Malaysia PDS TRAINING CAMP SDN BHD

Clause 36, properly construed, is a lawful termination-for-convenience provision invoked in the national interest; clause 36.3 excludes consequential losses arising from termination but does not absolutely restrain enforcement of accrued contractual entitlements and therefore does not violate s.29 or s.24 Contracts Act 1950 or Article 8; the High Court erred in invalidating clause 36 and in finding unequal bargaining power sufficient to void it.

Citation
N-01(NCvC)(W)-324-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Federal Government; Appellant in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 324 06/2023; Respondent in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 388 07/2023; Defendant in Trial: Kerajaan Malaysia; Private Company; Respondent in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 324 06/2023; Appellant in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 388 07/2023; Plaintiff in Trial: PDS Training Camp Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 September 2024
Case Number
N-01(NCvC)(W)-324-06/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
After Trial Appeals to Court of Appeal / Appellate Review of High Court Judgment (court of Appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal N-01(NCvC)(W)-324-06/2023 allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Appeal N-01(NCvC)(W)-388-07/2023 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clause, Termination for Convenience (national Interest), Public Policy, Unequal Bargaining Power, Restraint of Legal Proceedings (s.29 Contracts Act 1950)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Constitutional Law Public/administrative Law Exclusion Clause Termination for Convenience (national Interest) Public Policy Unequal Bargaining Power Restraint of Legal Proceedings (s.29 Contracts Act 1950)

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerajaan Malaysia

Federal Government; Appellant in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 324 06/2023; Respondent in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 388 07/2023; Defendant in Trial

PDS Training Camp Sdn Bhd

Private Company; Respondent in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 324 06/2023; Appellant in Civil Appeal N 01(ncv C)(w) 388 07/2023; Plaintiff in Trial

Procedural Posture

After Trial Appeals to Court of Appeal / Appellate Review of High Court Judgment (court of Appeal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 36 of the Contract is void under s.29 Contracts Act 1950 as an absolute restriction on enforcement of rights
  2. 2 Whether clause 36 offends s.24 Contracts Act 1950 or public policy
  3. 3 Whether clause 36 violates Article 8 Federal Constitution (equality)

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 36, properly construed, is a lawful termination-for-convenience provision invoked in the national interest; clause 36.3 excludes consequential losses arising from termination but does not absolutely restrain enforcement of accrued contractual entitlements and therefore does not violate s.29 or s.24 Contracts Act 1950 or Article 8; the High Court erred in invalidating clause 36 and in finding unequal bargaining power sufficient to void it.

Court Disposition

Appeal N-01(NCvC)(W)-324-06/2023 allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Appeal N-01(NCvC)(W)-388-07/2023 dismissed.

Orders

  • Allow Appeal 324 and set aside the High Court decision
  • Dismiss Appeal 388