KIENSON HARDWARE SDN. BHD. SANJUNG SEPANG SDN BHD

KIENSON HARDWARE SDN. BHD. SANJUNG SEPANG SDN BHD

Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to claimed interest because it did not produce the underlying invoices for 351 items and relied on unilateral debit notes; an adverse inference under Evidence Act s114(g) was properly drawn that the plaintiff's documents were inaccurate and the claim excessive. Separately, the plaintiff's acceptance of PO 32007913 was subject to a three‑month price validity communicated by email, so the plaintiff had no obligation to deliver at the original price after expiry and is not liable for the defendant's cover purchase losses.

Citation
WA-12BNCC-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant (appeal 22); Respondent (appeal 23): Kienson Hardware Sdn Bhd; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 22); Appellant (appeal 23): Sanjung Sepang Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Case Number
WA-12BNCC-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to High Court / Determination on Appeals; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Interest on Late Payment, Failure to Deliver / Cover Purchases, Evidentiary Burden and Documentary Proof, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Interest on Late Payment Failure to Deliver / Cover Purchases Evidentiary Burden and Documentary Proof Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act

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

Parties

Kienson Hardware Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff; Appellant (appeal 22); Respondent (appeal 23)

Sanjung Sepang Sdn Bhd

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 22); Appellant (appeal 23)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to High Court / Determination on Appeals; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff proved entitlement to contractual interest on late payments
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff produced sufficient invoices to establish due dates and calculate interest
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference under section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to claimed interest because it did not produce the underlying invoices for 351 items and relied on unilateral debit notes; an adverse inference under Evidence Act s114(g) was properly drawn that the plaintiff's documents were inaccurate and the claim excessive. Separately, the plaintiff's acceptance of PO 32007913 was subject to a three‑month price validity communicated by email, so the plaintiff had no obligation to deliver at the original price after expiry and is not liable for the defendant's cover purchase losses.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal WA-12BNCC-22-08/2023 dismissed
  • Appeal WA-12BNCC-23-08/2023 dismissed