W.T.K SERVICE & WAREHOUSING SDN. BHD. MEDAN MESTIKA SDN. BHD.

W.T.K SERVICE & WAREHOUSING SDN. BHD. MEDAN MESTIKA SDN. BHD.

The Court found that the plaintiff established a special business arrangement and a running account by admissible evidence (invoices, WTK Trading receipts and Summary Ledger admissible under s90A). Because a running account existed and part payments reset limitation, the plaintiff's claim was not time‑barred under Item 66 of the Sarawak Limitation Ordinance; accordingly the appeal on limitation was allowed and the defendant's appeal against the finding of a running account was dismissed.

Citation
Q-02(NCvC)(W)-821-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: W.T.K Service & Warehousing Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant: Medan Mestika Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 April 2024
Case Number
Q-02(NCvC)(W)-821-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appellant/Plaintiff appeal on limitation allowed; Appellant/Defendant appeal on running account dismissed.
Legal Topics
Running Account, Special Business Arrangement, Limitation Period, Estoppel, Admissibility of Computer Printouts (s90 a Evidence Act), Unjust Enrichment
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Evidence Limitation Law Civil Procedure Running Account Special Business Arrangement Limitation Period +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.T.K Service & Warehousing Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff

Medan Mestika Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a special business arrangement and a running account existed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Sarawak Limitation Ordinance (Cap 49)
  3. 3 Admissibility of the Summary of Ledger produced as computer printouts under s.90A Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiff established a special business arrangement and a running account by admissible evidence (invoices, WTK Trading receipts and Summary Ledger admissible under s90A). Because a running account existed and part payments reset limitation, the plaintiff's claim was not time‑barred under Item 66 of the Sarawak Limitation Ordinance; accordingly the appeal on limitation was allowed and the defendant's appeal against the finding of a running account was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appellant/Plaintiff appeal on limitation allowed; Appellant/Defendant appeal on running account dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant/Plaintiff appeal on limitation allowed; costs of MYR 15,000 to be paid by Respondent/Defendant to Appellant/Plaintiff, subject to allocatur fee.
  • Appellant/Defendant appeal on running account dismissed; costs of MYR 20,000 to be paid by Appellant/Defendant to Respondent/Plaintiff, subject to allocatur fee.