MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 1. DIGITAL VIVA SDN BHD 2. TYEWEI MARKETING SDN BHD

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA 1. DIGITAL VIVA SDN BHD 2. TYEWEI MARKETING SDN BHD

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court misapplied the law on third party proceedings and res judicata, there was no privity or indemnity obligation by MBPJ under the licensing contract, and a third party cannot be ordered to pay the plaintiff directly; therefore the High Court's order that MBPJ indemnify and pay the plaintiff was set aside.

Citation
B-02(NCVC)(W)-2185-11/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/third Party: Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya; 1st Respondent/plaintiff: Digital Viva Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Tyewei Marketing Sdn Bhd
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 March 2019
Case Number
B-02(NCVC)(W)-2185-11/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (heard 5 March 2018; Judgment Delivered 3 January 2020)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court decision dated 3 November 2016 set aside. Deposit refunded to appellant. Costs RM10,000 awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Third Party Proceedings Under Order 16, Indemnity and Contribution, Foreseeability of Damages (s74 Contracts Act 1950), Res Judicata Test
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Civil Appeal Res Judicata Privity of Contract Third Party Proceedings Under Order 16 Indemnity and Contribution Foreseeability of Damages (s74 Contracts Act 1950) +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya

Appellant/third Party

Digital Viva Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent/plaintiff

Tyewei Marketing Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (heard 5 March 2018; Judgment Delivered 3 January 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court misappreciated the nature of third party proceedings and could order a third party to pay the plaintiff directly
  2. 2 Whether there was privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party (MBPJ) such that MBPJ could be held liable under the licensing contract
  3. 3 Whether the earlier 2013 judgment against MBPJ operated as res judicata to bind MBPJ in the separate 2015 suit

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court misapplied the law on third party proceedings and res judicata, there was no privity or indemnity obligation by MBPJ under the licensing contract, and a third party cannot be ordered to pay the plaintiff directly; therefore the High Court's order that MBPJ indemnify and pay the plaintiff was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court decision dated 3 November 2016 set aside. Deposit refunded to appellant. Costs RM10,000 awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs of RM10,000 to the appellant
  • High Court judgment dated 3 November 2016 is set aside