22 Mar 2024
The LOA and subsequent purchase order constituted a binding contract independent of any government contract; the COA and without prejudice correspondence evidenced an agreed mobilisation fee which the defendant admitted and failed to pay; therefore the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for RM2,722,080 with interest and costs.
16 Nov 2020
The Appellants' contemporaneous letters and documentary evidence established a prima facie case of goods sold and delivered and admission of indebtedness; the Appellants failed to produce specific affidavit evidence demonstrating how the interest was compounded or that the quantum was incorrect, and their denials were inconsistent and therefore not bona fide triable issues; summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered and the appeal was dismissed.
14 Sept 2020
The appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court's summary judgment was upheld because the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: invoices and an earlier letter established the agreed 1.5% monthly interest and the defendant's acknowledgement of the debt; the 'without prejudice' label was inapplicable because the correspondence did not arise from settlement negotiations; and the bare allegation of non‑registration under the Sales Tax Act did not show illegality affecting enforceability of the transaction.
30 Sept 2019
The Defendants failed to raise any bona fide triable issues supported by contemporaneous documents or evidence; the Letter of Guarantee and Letter of Undertaking created enforceable on‑demand obligations binding the Second and Third Defendants; the Plaintiff proved default and entitlement to judgment on affidavit and exhibits under O.14; summary judgment was therefore appropriate.