1. ) HR VISION SERVICES v Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan (WA-12ANCvC-32-03/2024)

HR VISION SERVICES [COMPANY No: 20030310093 (001426114-W)]

KHAIRUL AMRI BIN HAMIDI [NRIC No: 871228-02-5575]

HERAWATI BINTI HAMIDI [NRIC No: 751211-04-5442] … APPELLANTS AND YAYASAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN [COMPANY No: 1986601003290 (152446-W)] … RESPONDENT 16/07/2024 16:21:21 WA-12ANCvC-32-03/2024 Kand. 19 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT This Court’s decision [1] On 13.6.2024 this Court dismissed the Appellants’ appeal against the Session Court’s decision dated 16.2.2024 that granted a summary judgment against the Appellants. The summary judgment was for the amount outstanding owed by the Appellants to the Respondent in the sum of RM934,737.10. The decision by the Session Court was affirmed. Costs of RM10,000 was awarded to the Respondents. In essence, this Court found no triable issues. The facts of the case [2] The Statement of Claim (SoC) of the Respondent illustrated that the claim sought against the Appellants was a straightforward one. The claim was for the rent outstanding owed by the Appellants to Respondent pursuant to their agreement. The suit was initiated by the Respondent after the Appellants had failed to make good their word or rather pay the amount owing after substantial amount of time was granted by the Respondent, which was to aid the Appellants and resolve the matter without the need for courts’ adjudication. [3] The contractual relationship stemmed from a letter of Acceptance dated 1.5.2020 (SST) that the Appellants had executed with the Respondent. The SST was borne out of the First Appellant’s application to the Respondent for the appointment as the operator for the operation and management of a multi-storey car park at Terminal Bersepadu Selatan (the terminal) Kuala Lumpur that was under the management of the Respondent owned by Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL). [4] By virtue of the SST the First Appellant was to manage a site located at the open car park and multi-storey car park at Bandar Tasik Selatan, Park and Ride Tasik Selatan (the site). The rental rate agreed upon was RM30,000 a month from 1.5.2020 to 29.2.2023 (para 2 of the SST). The payment to the Respondent must not be made later than the 7th day of every month (para 3.4 of the SST). [5] The First Appellant had only paid RM63,000 on 29.5.2020 for two month’s rent and utilities as security deposit. The First Appellant had failed, neglected and/or refused to make any payments for the rent as agreed and stipulated in the SST. [6] The Respondent first demanded for the amount outstanding from May 2020 to January 2021 on 14.4.2021. The sum that amounted to RM240,000 was based on a discussion amongst the parties. The First Appellant had agreed to settle that sum of RM240,000 through monthly instalment payments of 12 months from April 2021 to March 2022. That was to be in addition to paying the monthly rent as the First Appellant was still occupying and operating the site. However, the First Appellant had failed to settled the arrears as agreed upon. The post-dated cheques issued to the Respondent were not honoured. The payments further did not follow the agreed time schedule. [7] That resulted in the second demand by the Respondent which was issued on 27.8.2021 which amounted to RM480,000. The First Appellant did not make full settlement of the sum. [8] Then on 18.5.2023 the Respondent issued a third notice through its solicitors that demanded the outstanding rent from May 2020 to January 2023 and overdue payment for utility bills. The demand for RM934,737.10 was not responded to by the any of the Appellants. This Court’s assessment [9] The First Appellant is a partnership. The filing of the suit against the Second and Third Appellants by the Respondent was correct in law as they were liable for all debts and obligations incurred by the First Appellant. The suit filed by the Respondent at the Session Court was on 28.8.2023. [10] This Court, as the Session Court had, scrutinised the affidavits to determine whether summary judgment was appropriately meted out. There was no denial by the Appellants of the sum owed to the Respondent. The Appellants had also admitted that they had not fulfil their contractual obligations nor the agreed promise to fully pay the sum through monthly payments. There was no issue on the indebtedness of the Appellants. On a balance of probabilities, it had been established which meant that there were no triable issues – KM Quarry Sdn Bhd v Ho Hup Construction Company Bhd [2006] 7 MLJ 203; [2006] 5 MLRH 136, Yam Kong Seng & Anor v Yee Weng Kai [2014] 4 MLJ 478; [2014] 4 MLRA 316; [2014] 6 CLJ 285; [2014] 4 AMR 395. [11] Thus, this Court found no issues to be tried and this case was suitable for the granting of a summary judgment. See HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd (Formerly known as Hong Kong Bank Malaysia Bhd) v LH Timber Products Sdn Bhd (Formerly known as Ho Lim Sawmill Sdn Bhd) & Ors [2005] 6 MLJ 625; [2005] 3 MLRH 64; [2005] 8 CLJ 249. [12] All parties to a contract are duly bound by all the provisions agreed to. Mere contention of misrepresentation by the Appellants remained bare and did not raise any triable issues - Tan Lee Hiok & Ors v Yeow Guang Cheng [2022] MLJU 1559; [2022] 6 MLRA 607, Malaysian French Bank Bhd v Abdullah Mohd Yusof & Ors [1991] 2 MLJ 475; [1990] 4 MLRH 366, OCBC Al-Amin Bank Bhd v Tan Pen Fah & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd and others [2021] MLJU 3135; [2021] MLRHU 2334. [13] The Defence further contained judicial admissions as to the indebtedness by the Appellants to the Respondent. See the Federal Court’s decision in Yam Kong Seng & Anor v Yee Weng Kai [2014] 4 MLJ 478; [2014] 4 MLRA 316; [2014] 6 CLJ 285; [2014] 4 AMR 395. There were no issues that needed further determination at a full trial – refer to Malayan Banking Bhd (formerly known as Mayban Finance Bhd) v

[14] The law is trite that bare assertions and denials made with just averments are insufficient to raise any triable issues. See Lonpac Insurance Sdn Bhd v Koridor Padu Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 1276; [2021] MLRHU 779, Best Re (L) Ltd v Hanwha General Insurance Co Ltd [2014] 9 MLJ 125; [2013] MLRHU 1384. [15] Appellate intervention was refused. This Court’s conclusion was the same as that of the Session Court. This appeal was dismissed accordingly. Costs of RM10,000 was awarded to the Respondent. The decision of the Session Court was affirmed. DATED 15 JULY 2024 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Appellants: Tuan Muhammad Arief Tuan Mohamad Yusof and Syazwan Mohd Jafri T/n Arief & Iskandar For the Respondent: Marina Tiwol, Wafiy Azman and Muhammad