DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

The unstamped sub‑contract was admissible under the Evidence Act despite the Stamp Act because the Evidence Act governs admissibility; the contract was valid, the Defendant had accepted payment and thereby admitted and was estopped from denying obligations, the fraud allegation was unsupported, the Defendant breached the contract and must refund the sum paid and the Plaintiff is entitled to LAD; accordingly the Defendant's appeal was dismissed and the Plaintiff's cross‑appeal allowed.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-135-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD; Respondent: EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-135-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Adjudication and Judgment on Cross‑appeal
Outcome
Defendant's appeal dismissed; Plaintiff's cross‑appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Contract Validity, Fraud, Admissibility of Documents, Late Delivery Penalty, Estoppel, Approbation and Reprobation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Evidence Stamp Duty Civil Procedure Contract Validity Fraud Admissibility of Documents Late Delivery Penalty +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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD

Perayu

EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Adjudication and Judgment on Cross‑appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unstamped sub‑contract is admissible in evidence
  2. 2 Whether the sub‑contract was valid or vitiated by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant breached the sub‑contract and is liable to refund the sum paid

Ratio Decidendi

The unstamped sub‑contract was admissible under the Evidence Act despite the Stamp Act because the Evidence Act governs admissibility; the contract was valid, the Defendant had accepted payment and thereby admitted and was estopped from denying obligations, the fraud allegation was unsupported, the Defendant breached the contract and must refund the sum paid and the Plaintiff is entitled to LAD; accordingly the Defendant's appeal was dismissed and the Plaintiff's cross‑appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's appeal dismissed; Plaintiff's cross‑appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Defendant to refund RM434,729.32 to the Plaintiff
  • Plaintiff entitled to late delivery penalty of RM48,000