JBS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED RAIHANAH COLD STORAGE SDN. BHD.

JBS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED RAIHANAH COLD STORAGE SDN. BHD.

The Court found Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence; Defendant’s pleaded defences amounted to disputed assertions rather than bona fide defences and Defendant had submitted to Malaysian jurisdiction by appearing and filing pleadings without timely challenge to jurisdiction. Given the strong transactional nexus to Malaysia and the evidential record, no triable issues warranted a full trial. Summary judgment was therefore entered for Plaintiff and costs awarded.

Citation
JA-22NCC-31-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: JBS Australia Pty Limited; Defendan: Raihanah Cold Storage Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Case Number
JA-22NCC-31-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Order 14 Summary Judgment Application (final Decision)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against Defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Indemnity, Mitigation of Loss, Damages, Pre‑judgment Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Commercial Law International Private Law Summary Judgment (order 14) Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Indemnity +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JBS Australia Pty Limited

Plaintif

Raihanah Cold Storage Sdn Bhd

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Order 14 Summary Judgment Application (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant has a bona fide defence warranting a full trial
  2. 2 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause ousts Malaysian jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the New Customer Form and subsequent CoS/invoices constitute binding contractual terms

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence; Defendant’s pleaded defences amounted to disputed assertions rather than bona fide defences and Defendant had submitted to Malaysian jurisdiction by appearing and filing pleadings without timely challenge to jurisdiction. Given the strong transactional nexus to Malaysia and the evidential record, no triable issues warranted a full trial. Summary judgment was therefore entered for Plaintiff and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against Defendant

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered against Defendant in favour of Plaintiff
  • Costs awarded to Plaintiff of RM3000.00