SURIA LABS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD BAI YANG INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LIMITED

SURIA LABS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD BAI YANG INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LIMITED

The Court found that the Plaintiff discharged its burden on the balance of probabilities by adducing contemporaneous documents and credible witness testimony that services were provided, the prototype was delivered and launched, the Service Agreement was extended at the Defendant’s request, and defects complained of were normal to software development and were attended to; the Defendant failed to call witnesses with personal knowledge to rebut these facts; the contract was not illegal or against public policy given express contractual warranties that the Defendant would not operate the site where illegal and would obtain licences; accordingly judgment is entered for the Plaintiff for the...

Citation
WA-22NCC-126-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Suria Labs Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Bai Yang Infrastructure Group Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-126-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt Claim (services Agreement) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Contract, Illegality and Public Policy (sect.24 Contracts Act 1950), Breach of Contract (non Payment), Evidential Burden at Trial, Software Defects and Completion, Interest and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Public Policy Technology/it Contracts Enforceability of Contract Illegality and Public Policy (sect.24 Contracts Act 1950) Breach of Contract (non Payment) +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suria Labs Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Bai Yang Infrastructure Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt Claim (services Agreement) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover USD 248,000 for unpaid invoices under the Service Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant rebutted the Plaintiff’s evidence that services were performed and the prototype delivered
  3. 3 Whether the Service Agreement was void or unenforceable as against public policy or illegal (Contracts Act 1950 s24)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Plaintiff discharged its burden on the balance of probabilities by adducing contemporaneous documents and credible witness testimony that services were provided, the prototype was delivered and launched, the Service Agreement was extended at the Defendant’s request, and defects complained of were normal to software development and were attended to; the Defendant failed to call witnesses with personal knowledge to rebut these facts; the contract was not illegal or against public policy given express contractual warranties that the Defendant would not operate the site where illegal and would obtain licences; accordingly judgment is entered for the Plaintiff for the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff USD 248,000.00 or equivalent RM 1,113,520.00 (exchange rate RM4.49 = USD1.00)
  • Interest on USD 248,000.00 at 5% per annum from 25.7.2022 until full payment