HARAPAN PADU ENTERPRISE PILACORP RESOURCES SDN BHD

HARAPAN PADU ENTERPRISE PILACORP RESOURCES SDN BHD

The Deed of Assignment expressly obligated the Defendant (assignor) to ensure payment to the Plaintiff (assignee) for subcontract works and to pay any deficiency where final payment under the main contract was insufficient (clauses 7.2 and 9); JKR's certification of works and Defendant's admissions and conduct established liability and quantum on a balance of probabilities; the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong, so the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judgment with costs.

Citation
AB-12BNCvC-10-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PILACORP RESOURCES SDN. BHD.; Defendant: HARAPAN PADU ENTERPRISE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 October 2024
Case Number
AB-12BNCvC-10-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Deed of Assignment, Privity of Contract, Subcontracting Liabilities, Burden of Proof, Admission of Debt, Assessment of Damages and Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Construction Law Deed of Assignment Privity of Contract Subcontracting Liabilities Burden of Proof +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PILACORP RESOURCES SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff

HARAPAN PADU ENTERPRISE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff proved the quantum of the debt owed on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the wrong party was sued and whether the paymaster (JKR) should have been made a defendant
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misapplied law by effectively rewriting the contract or misappreciating evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of Assignment expressly obligated the Defendant (assignor) to ensure payment to the Plaintiff (assignee) for subcontract works and to pay any deficiency where final payment under the main contract was insufficient (clauses 7.2 and 9); JKR's certification of works and Defendant's admissions and conduct established liability and quantum on a balance of probabilities; the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong, so the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judgment with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent