GAZZRIZ SDN BHD SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

GAZZRIZ SDN BHD SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

The High Court held the Sessions Court was not plainly wrong: the defendant's pleaded case consisted largely of bare/general denials which were insufficient to raise the specific issues now relied upon; documents agreed as Part B did not require formal proof by calling their makers and were admissible where referred to in evidence; the trial finding that the defendant agreed to the revised price was supported by the record; accordingly there was no basis for appellate intervention and the Sessions Court judgment was affirmed.

Citation
DA-12B-26-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Gazzriz Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Case Number
DA-12B-26-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and decision of the Sessions Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Part B Documents, Pleading Requirements, Proof of Documents, General Denial, Consensus Ad Idem, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Part B Documents Pleading Requirements Proof of Documents General Denial Consensus Ad Idem +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gazzriz Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether makers of Part B documents must be called to prove contents
  2. 2 Whether a general denial constitutes a sufficient traverse of pleaded facts
  3. 3 Whether there was consensus ad idem on the revised contract price

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Sessions Court was not plainly wrong: the defendant's pleaded case consisted largely of bare/general denials which were insufficient to raise the specific issues now relied upon; documents agreed as Part B did not require formal proof by calling their makers and were admissible where referred to in evidence; the trial finding that the defendant agreed to the revised price was supported by the record; accordingly there was no basis for appellate intervention and the Sessions Court judgment was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and decision of the Sessions Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 17.6.2019 affirmed