INTERGATEWAY FREIGHT SDN BHD SAM KAR CHYI

INTERGATEWAY FREIGHT SDN BHD SAM KAR CHYI

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Defendant caused the full loss; Defendant was not privy to the plaintiff’s contract with Sanmina or the alleged 180-day invoicing term; Plaintiff failed to mitigate and exhaust remedies against Sanmina and accepted a partial settlement, and allowing recovery from Defendant would risk double recovery and be remote; accordingly Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Intergateway Freight Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Sam Kar Chyi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Negligence and Contractual Loss Claim / Trial Judgment Delivered (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Privity of Contract, Mitigation of Loss, Double Recovery, Limitation Period, Service Level Agreement, Employer Supervision of Employees
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Tort Negligence Employment Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Causation Remoteness of Damage Privity of Contract +5 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intergateway Freight Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Sam Kar Chyi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Negligence and Contractual Loss Claim / Trial Judgment Delivered (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant caused Plaintiff’s loss of RM1,357,429 owed by Sanmina
  2. 2 Whether Defendant can be held liable for sums owing by Plaintiff’s customer (privity)
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff exhausted remedies against Sanmina and mitigated loss

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Defendant caused the full loss; Defendant was not privy to the plaintiff’s contract with Sanmina or the alleged 180-day invoicing term; Plaintiff failed to mitigate and exhaust remedies against Sanmina and accepted a partial settlement, and allowing recovery from Defendant would risk double recovery and be remote; accordingly Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay costs of MYR 35000 to Defendant