TAM SOOK ENGINEERING WORKS [000725604-X] PGL VISION SDN BHD [719049-A]

TAM SOOK ENGINEERING WORKS [000725604-X] PGL VISION SDN BHD [719049-A]

Appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found appellant failed to prove the alleged oral terms and failed to substantiate invoices/calculations so as to displace burden under section 101 Evidence Act; documents and agreed payments established an overpayment of RM44,713.04 due to respondent which justified allowance of the counterclaim; procedural non-compliance with Order 77 r9 did not prejudice respondent and did not bar the substantive hearing.

Citation
CB-12B-9-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: TAM SOOK ENGINEERING WORKS [000725604-X]; Respondent/defendant: PGL VISION SDN BHD [719049-A]
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Case Number
CB-12B-9-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 29.09.2020 upheld.
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Quantum of Damages, Counterclaim/overpayment, Locus Standi (capacity to Sue), Compliance With Court Rules (order 77 R9)
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Law Oral Agreement Quantum of Damages Counterclaim/overpayment Locus Standi (capacity to Sue) Compliance With Court Rules (order 77 R9)

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAM SOOK ENGINEERING WORKS [000725604-X]

Appellant/plaintiff

PGL VISION SDN BHD [719049-A]

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved the existence and terms of the alleged oral contract and entitlement to claimed expenses
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings should be disturbed on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established an overpayment and is entitled to repayment (counterclaim)

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found appellant failed to prove the alleged oral terms and failed to substantiate invoices/calculations so as to displace burden under section 101 Evidence Act; documents and agreed payments established an overpayment of RM44,713.04 due to respondent which justified allowance of the counterclaim; procedural non-compliance with Order 77 r9 did not prejudice respondent and did not bar the substantive hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 29.09.2020 upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of Sessions Court dated 29.09.2020 affirmed