11 Dec 2025
On the balance of probabilities the court found Prototech proved the debt of RM204,829.75 for supplied concrete and awarded judgment to Prototech with costs; Euro Saga failed to prove contractual privity or any contractual obligation of Prototech to bear remediation or idling costs and its counterclaim was dismissed with costs.
4 Jun 2025
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved delivery, acceptance and quantum via contemporaneous documents and credible oral evidence; the corporate guarantees were valid, authorized and their conditions (delivery to site, use for project, signed and stamped delivery orders) were substantially satisfied; Euroland’s consent judgment admitting liability materially undermined Euro Holdings’ conspiracy counterclaim; Euro Holdings failed to prove agreement, intent and causation for conspiracy so the counterclaim is dismissed and Euro Holdings is liable under the guarantees up to the state…
4 Jun 2025
On the balance of probabilities M South proved delivery and acceptance of goods; the corporate guarantees were valid, board‑authorized and their conditions were substantially satisfied (delivery to site, use for project, signed/stamped delivery orders); Euroland's consent judgment acknowledging legitimate supply fatally undermined Euro Holdings' conspiracy allegations; Euro Holdings failed to prove the elements of conspiracy and is liable under the guarantees; claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.
4 Jun 2025
On the balance of probabilities the court found ADY proved supply of goods and services with contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence; the corporate guarantees dated 8.8.2017 and 1.11.2018 were valid and enforceable and Euro Holdings was liable under them up to the stated limits because the essential conditions precedent (delivery to site, use for project, signed/stamped delivery orders) were satisfied in substance; Euroland's consent judgment substantially undermined Euro Holdings' conspiracy counterclaim and Euro Holdings failed to prove the elements of conspiracy, which was dis…
2 Jan 2025
The appeal is allowed in part because the Sale Contract governs the parties' obligations and the Plaintiff fulfilled its unit‑based supply obligation; however proceedings against the 2nd Defendant (guarantor) were premature for lack of a required demand under the guarantee, the contractual 1.5% monthly interest was disallowed as consequential to the premature claim, and a Penal Notice endorsement is impermissible for a purely monetary judgment; all other findings and reliefs of the Sessions Court are affirmed.
14 Jun 2021
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved existence of an oral agreement and supply of 200 gas cylinders by admissible business records (Exhibits P4, P6) and payment evidence; the defendant's denials were bare and unsupported and key witness not called, permitting inference against defendant under s114(g); accordingly defendant liable for RM92,059.00 with interest and costs as ordered.