WESTPORTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ORACLE CORPORATION MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. BANK OF AMERICA MALAYSIA BERHAD

WESTPORTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ORACLE CORPORATION MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. BANK OF AMERICA MALAYSIA BERHAD

The Court dismissed the summary judgment application because there were unresolved factual issues about whether the contract required entire performance such that termination precluded payment; Section 40 Contracts Act 1950 applied and the matter required evidence, so summary judgment could not be granted based solely on invoices.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-94-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Oracle Corporation Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Bank of America Malaysia Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 December 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-94-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil High Court / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
1st Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Repudiation and Termination, Performance Entire Contract Vs Severable Obligations, Remedies, Interpretation of Payment Provisions
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Repudiation and Termination Performance Entire Contract Vs Severable Obligations Remedies Interpretation of Payment Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Oracle Corporation Malaysia Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Bank of America Malaysia Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil High Court / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the systems agreement was to be performed in its entirety or in part
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment is appropriate based solely on invoices issued and claimed as non‑refundable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the summary judgment application because there were unresolved factual issues about whether the contract required entire performance such that termination precluded payment; Section 40 Contracts Act 1950 applied and the matter required evidence, so summary judgment could not be granted based solely on invoices.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • 1st Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Plaintiff in the sum of RM3,000