LE BOURNE SDN BHD ISC SDN BHD

LE BOURNE SDN BHD ISC SDN BHD

The court found no triable issues: the contract was a lump-sum contract with delivery obligation ended October 2022; Defendant breached by refusing the balance deliveries; Defendant had acknowledged and accepted storage charges by email and is estopped from denying them; the historic meeting minute was a one-off goodwill adjustment and not a standing business practice to treat unfulfilled quantities as cancelled; the cancellation-fee clause is a penal imposition, not a cap on liability; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and entered for Plaintiff for the claimed sums with costs.

Citation
BL-B52NCC-77-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Le Bourne Sdn Bhd; Defendant: ISC Sdn. Bhd.
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2024
Case Number
BL-B52NCC-77-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment (order 14) Granted; Appeal Filed
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Damages, Estoppel, Mitigation of Loss, Penalty Clause, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Damages Estoppel Mitigation of Loss +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Bourne Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

ISC Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment (order 14) Granted; Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate (plain and obvious case with no triable issues)
  2. 2 Whether Defendant breached the sales contract and is liable for the contract price for 60,000 kg of goods (RM719,000.00)
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to carry-over storage costs (RM76,061.55) and whether Defendant is estopped from denying those costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no triable issues: the contract was a lump-sum contract with delivery obligation ended October 2022; Defendant breached by refusing the balance deliveries; Defendant had acknowledged and accepted storage charges by email and is estopped from denying them; the historic meeting minute was a one-off goodwill adjustment and not a standing business practice to treat unfulfilled quantities as cancelled; the cancellation-fee clause is a penal imposition, not a cap on liability; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and entered for Plaintiff for the claimed sums with costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Enter judgment for Plaintiff in respect of the claim as per Annex 8 in the amount RM795,061.55
  • Costs to Plaintiff RM3,000.00