WIRE & WIRELESS SDN BHD WIRE & WIRELESS SDN BHD EMINENT DISPLAY SDN BHD

WIRE & WIRELESS SDN BHD WIRE & WIRELESS SDN BHD EMINENT DISPLAY SDN BHD

The termination was invalid because the asserted ground did not fall within the enumerated events in clause 5.1 and the Defendant failed to serve the mandatory written notice and allow the 30‑day remedy period; clause 1.4 does not operate to make the Plaintiff a contracting party to the TM Agreement or bind it to subsequent TM obligations by virtue of privity; therefore the termination was wrongful and the matter is remitted for assessment of damages under section 74 Contracts Act 1950.

Citation
W-02(NCVC)(W)-1060-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Wire & Wireless Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Eminent Display Sdn Bhd
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Case Number
W-02(NCVC)(W)-1060-06/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Court of Appeal Judgment; Remitted to High Court for Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; claim remitted to High Court for assessment of damages; costs awarded to Appellant.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Termination Clause Compliance, Privity of Contract, Assessment of Damages, Construction of Contract, Performance Bond
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Wrongful Termination Termination Clause Compliance Privity of Contract Assessment of Damages Construction of Contract +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wire & Wireless Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Eminent Display Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Court of Appeal Judgment; Remitted to High Court for Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination notice complied with clause 5.1 of the Collaboration Agreement
  2. 2 Whether clause 1.4 of the Collaboration Agreement bound the plaintiff to obligations in the TM Agreement/new WiFi architecture
  3. 3 Entitlement to damages for wrongful termination

Ratio Decidendi

The termination was invalid because the asserted ground did not fall within the enumerated events in clause 5.1 and the Defendant failed to serve the mandatory written notice and allow the 30‑day remedy period; clause 1.4 does not operate to make the Plaintiff a contracting party to the TM Agreement or bind it to subsequent TM obligations by virtue of privity; therefore the termination was wrongful and the matter is remitted for assessment of damages under section 74 Contracts Act 1950.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; claim remitted to High Court for assessment of damages; costs awarded to Appellant.

Orders

  • Allow appeal and set aside the High Court judgment dated 03.05.2017
  • Remit claim to the High Court for assessment of damages pursuant to section 74(1) and (2) Contracts Act 1950