PK JUITA SDN BHD 1. ) AF CENTRIC SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ALBERT CHIA KET SHIN 3. ) Jiang, Zhou

PK JUITA SDN BHD 1. ) AF CENTRIC SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ALBERT CHIA KET SHIN 3. ) Jiang, Zhou

The court found the quotations, work orders and invoices collectively formed a written contract which Defendant 1 accepted (stamped and signed), Defendant 1 made partial payments and failed to raise timely or substantive objections; therefore Defendant 1 had no meritorious defence and summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.

Citation
JA-A52NCC-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: PKJUITA SDN BHD; Defendant 1: AF CENTRIC SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.; Defendant 2: ALBERT CHIA KET SHIN; Defendant 3: JIANG, ZHOU
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 January 2025
Case Number
JA-A52NCC-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Interlocutory Judgment (order 14 Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Application allowed (summary judgment entered against Defendant 1)
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Account Stated, Estoppel, Invoices and Delivery, Costs, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Debt Recovery Summary Judgment Account Stated Estoppel Invoices and Delivery +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PKJUITA SDN BHD

Plaintiff

AF CENTRIC SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.

Defendant 1

ALBERT CHIA KET SHIN

Defendant 2

JIANG, ZHOU

Defendant 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Interlocutory Judgment (order 14 Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding contract between plaintiff and Defendant 1 based on invoices, quotations and work orders
  2. 2 Whether Defendant 1 has a bona fide and triable defence to the claim
  3. 3 Whether the summary judgment procedure under Order 14 KKM 2012 is appropriate despite alleged delay in filing the application

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the quotations, work orders and invoices collectively formed a written contract which Defendant 1 accepted (stamped and signed), Defendant 1 made partial payments and failed to raise timely or substantive objections; therefore Defendant 1 had no meritorious defence and summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application allowed (summary judgment entered against Defendant 1)

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered against Defendant 1 for RM101,989.01
  • Interest at 5% per annum on the judgment sum from date of filing until full settlement