COLLAB WORKING LIFESTYLE SDN BHD Khoo Zheng Yi (Berdagang Sebagai Edward Fanilee Enterprise Dengan No. Pendaftaran: 201803160527 (002824773-h))

COLLAB WORKING LIFESTYLE SDN BHD Khoo Zheng Yi (Berdagang Sebagai Edward Fanilee Enterprise Dengan No. Pendaftaran: 201803160527 (002824773-h))

The Sessions Court erred in accepting hearsay and solicitor testimony to find termination of the Main Agreements; the defendant failed to prove termination or frustration, continued to perform under the IOI and DPULZE Agreements and admitted indebtedness, and therefore the IOI and DPULZE contractual obligations remained enforceable; frustration was not pleaded and could not discharge the defendant's debts.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Collab Working Lifestyle Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Khoo Zheng Yi (trading as Edward Famille Enterprise)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 October 2022
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-20-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Locus Standi, Admissibility of Hearsay/part C Documents, Burden of Proof, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Quantification of Debt
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial/franchise Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Conflict of Laws/jurisdiction Frustration of Contract Locus Standi Admissibility of Hearsay/part C Documents +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collab Working Lifestyle Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Khoo Zheng Yi (trading as Edward Famille Enterprise)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged termination of the Main Agreements discharged the defendant's payment obligations under the IOI and DPULZE licensing agreements
  2. 2 Whether the defendant proved termination of the Main Agreements and entitlement to rely on frustration
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of hearsay/Part C documents and testimony by a solicitor not the contractual party

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court erred in accepting hearsay and solicitor testimony to find termination of the Main Agreements; the defendant failed to prove termination or frustration, continued to perform under the IOI and DPULZE Agreements and admitted indebtedness, and therefore the IOI and DPULZE contractual obligations remained enforceable; frustration was not pleaded and could not discharge the defendant's debts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs, here and below, subject to payment of allocator
  • Sessions Court judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claim set aside