YANG ZHONG CAPITAL SDN BHD FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

YANG ZHONG CAPITAL SDN BHD FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

The appeal is dismissed because the parties were bound by the clear contractual terms which entitled the respondent to recover arrears and unaccrued rentals on termination; the appellant failed to raise particularized triable issues and raised new unpleaded grounds late; past consideration is valid under s2(d) Contracts Act 1950, therefore summary judgment was properly entered and should stand.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-249-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Yang Zhong Capital Sdn Bhd; Defendant/respondent: Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 July 2020
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-249-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Summary Judgment
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rental Agreement, Termination, Consideration, Repossession, Unjust Enrichment, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Equity Summary Judgment Rental Agreement Termination Consideration Repossession +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yang Zhong Capital Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/appellant

Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under O.14 R.1 ROC 2012 was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether termination and repossession extinguished appellant's obligation to pay unaccrued rentals
  3. 3 Whether claiming unaccrued rentals after repossession constitutes unjust enrichment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the parties were bound by the clear contractual terms which entitled the respondent to recover arrears and unaccrued rentals on termination; the appellant failed to raise particularized triable issues and raised new unpleaded grounds late; past consideration is valid under s2(d) Contracts Act 1950, therefore summary judgment was properly entered and should stand.