SO SUN SING SDN BHD SETIA INDAH SDN BHD

SO SUN SING SDN BHD SETIA INDAH SDN BHD

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to prove a meeting of minds or prior written agreement for the additional fees claimed; Regulation 29(1)(g) requires fees to be in the schedule or agreed in writing; portions of the claim were time-barred and certain invoices constituted double claims; on these factual findings the trial judge's dismissal was not plainly wrong and was upheld.

Citation
JA-12BNCvC-26-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: SO SUN SING SDN BHD; Respondent/defendant: SETIA INDAH SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Case Number
JA-12BNCvC-26-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Session Court After Full Trial
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; trial court judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Non Payment of Fees, Consensus (ad Idem), Licensed Land Surveyors Regulations, Statute of Limitation, Quantum Meruit, Double Billing
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Professional Services Strata Management Administrative Law Civil Procedure Non Payment of Fees Consensus (ad Idem) Licensed Land Surveyors Regulations +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SO SUN SING SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

SETIA INDAH SDN BHD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Session Court After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved its claim for unpaid survey fees
  2. 2 Whether invoices issued absent prior quotation or written agreement formed a binding contract
  3. 3 Whether appellant was entitled to bill for additional SIFUS and schedule of parcels work without prior agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to prove a meeting of minds or prior written agreement for the additional fees claimed; Regulation 29(1)(g) requires fees to be in the schedule or agreed in writing; portions of the claim were time-barred and certain invoices constituted double claims; on these factual findings the trial judge's dismissal was not plainly wrong and was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; trial court judgment upheld

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Trial judge's dismissal of Appellant's claims upheld