Alpha Polymer Sdn Bhd v Gyh Manufacturing Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCC-117-06/2024)

GYH MANUFACTURING SDN BHD [Company No.: 1132185-H]

ECOHOUSE VENTURE SDN BHD [Company No.: 1500697-A] … DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT

In this judgement the Plaintiff claims a sum of money for goods sold and delivered to the 1st Defendant and to hold the 2nd Defendant responsible on the grounds, that payments were channelled through the 2nd Defendant. The Defendants deny receiving the substantial amount of the goods and highlight the deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, the Delivery Orders and emphasized the weaknesses in the evidence of delivery. S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

Defendants, further dispute that documentary purchase orders, to its authenticity and genuineness. After consideration of all the evidence and the cause papers during the trial and after full submissions from both the counsels, I have decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on the following grounds of judgment.

The Plaintiff is a manufacturing factory, supplying plastic containers and commercial plastic bags to businesses related to wholesale markets, supermarkets and retail stores. Before the incorporation of the Second Defendant, EV, the First Defendant, GYH, initially served as the manufacturer and supplier of plastic products through different household brands ‘ecohouse’, ‘G.S.V.’ and “Mydin”. GYH then, supplies the household goods to another company called G.S.T PLT, which eventually delivers the said goods to the First Defendant’s customer’s such as Mydin and KK Mart.

Due to flooding, GYH encountered severe damage on some of it’s machinery and eventually had trouble supplying the said goods. They pursued an alternative manufacturer to ensure their chain S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw supply of goods continued to customers, hence, the Plaintiff took over the production of the plastics goods. With the intention to enhance coordination and minimize transportation costs, the Plaintiff expressed their interest in acquiring GYH’s machinery as well as G.S.T PLT. Accordingly, in a joint venture arrangement, EV was incorporated on 27.02.2023 to take over GST’s role where the Plaintiff will then manage the logistics for all orders made by the First Defendant to be delivered to Mydin premises at various outlets.

The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are as follows: I. Plaintiff being the manufacturer will source the goods to GYH; II. GYH will then supply the goods directly to EV and no more to G.S.T PTL; III. EV then supply the said goods to the customers namely Mydin and KK Mart.

Subsequently the Plaintiff claims to recover, a balance sum of moneis for goods sold and delivered based on invoices billed to the GHY, as well as to hold EV, responsible on the grounds that the payments were channeled through EV. However, the Defendants deny receiving a substantial amount of the goods and highlight the deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, and S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw emphasized weaknesses in the evidence of delivery. They further dispute that documentary purchase orders, to its authenticity and genuineness. PRELIMINARY ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT Evidence of Geok See Hau DW1(GSH)

During the trial, the issue on the authority of GSH giving evidence on behalf of the First Defendant, was raised, since he was no longer the Director of the First Defendant. Nevertheless, after consideration of the Defendants written submissions, the evidence establishes GSH was primarily been dealing with the Plaintiff’s representative relating to matters in this dispute. After reviewing the Defendants submissions, this court will accept evidence given by GSH, based on the authorities of I. Alliance Connext Sdn Bhd & Anor v Wangsa Budimas Sdn Bhd II. Penang Amusement Com Sdn Bhd v Abdul Gaffor Bin Kalandar Mastan [2011] Issues as to the documents in Part C.

The Plaintiff’s action in this suit, premised solely on plastic goods sold and delivered to the Defendant. However, parties had placed S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw the Delivery Orders at Part C in the Common Bundle of Documents since no original documents were produced by the Plaintiffs according to the Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants argue that the delivery orders made a sudden appearance and show no acknowledgment of receipt by the Defendants. In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants did not plead fraud/forgery of the delivery orders and since DW1 was able to furnished a copy of the Delivery Order in the WhatsApp group chat, demonstrating, that the original Delivery Orders have always been in the possession of the Defendant.

Generally, documents placed in Part C, are disputed on its authenticity and contents. For the purpose of evaluating them as evidence, this court marked these documents in Part C for trial purposes as “ID.” The onus remains on the party relying on it to prove authenticity and contents by producing originals or calling evidence to identify and authenticate the document. See: case of Presto Supermarkets (Subang) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Attic Holdings Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 442.

In my view, based on the facts of this case, the Plaintiff’s delivery orders, should have been corroborated by contemporaneous documents relating to the carrier/delivery receipts, customer acknowledgements, or matching invoices/stock ledgers. A mere inclusion of the said delivery Orders in a bundle of documents, for S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw the courts examination without such corroboration is insufficient. Furthermore, the Plaintiff testified that there is no documentary evidence to show Goods were delivered during cross examination. [Referring to: page 50, line 13 to 31, Note of Proceedings dated 06.11.2025] AND page 44 to, line 34 to 36 and page 45, line 1, Note of Proceedings dated 06.11.2025]

In my opinion, the Plaintiff’s failure to prove that the orders made by GYH has been fulfilled and been delivered to the Defendant is fundamental to the Plaintiff’s claims as in the case of Chia Fai Chee (trading under the name and style of Golden Land Construction) v Romspect Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 2899 New issues raised by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff raised preliminary objection as to the production of new issues by the Defence which is a radical departure on the part of the Defence. The Plaintiff argues that issues raised in the Defendants’ witness statement are not pleaded in the Statement of Defence and to disregard all the non-pleaded issue raise by the Defendant.

However, this court disagrees with the Plaintiffs contention, after carefully reviewing and considering submissions and evidence S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw before this court. In my opinion, it was the Plaintiff’s pleadings, that were lacking material particulars, namely the purchase orders, Invoices, particularised Statement of Accounts and Delivery Orders with proper acknowledgements or even Mydin’s documents as proof. The Defendants had beforehand expressly raised all the above issues by stating, that they deny the Plaintiff’s claims as at paragraph 10 in their Defence. Lim Beng Brothers Sdn Bhd v Seri Dinar Project Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [2011] MLJU 9

As mentioned above, the Defendants deny receiving a substantial amount of the goods and highlight the deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, and emphasized weaknesses in the evidence of delivery. They further dispute that documentary purchase orders, to its authenticity and genuineness. Based on the disputes and arguments from both sides, the Court needs to determine the following: -

(i) Whether the Plaintiff has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the goods claimed were sold and properly delivered to the 1st Defendant namely, whether the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof for goods sold and delivered; S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

The Plaintiff admits that the Statement of Claim does not specify invoice numbers, invoice dates, or delivery details forming the basis of the claims. The failure to state reasonable particulars for claims of the type goods sold and delivered prevents the defendant from being given detailed particulars at the pleadings stage about what needs to be defended.

The fundamental civil procedure principle requires material facts to be pleaded so that the defendant is not taken by surprise at trial. S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw The Court finds that the absence of material details in the Statement of Claim constitutes a serious weakness on the part of the Plaintiff. This weakness is not merely technical but strikes at the core of the defendant’s ability to respond effectively.

During the trial, PW1, Lee Khai Loon, admitted that the Statement of Claim does not set out the documents regarding the purchase orders. Referring to PW1 cross-examination below, where he admitted to no proper documentary purchase order. [Refer: page 52, line 19 to 34, Note of Proceedings dated 06.11.2025] [Refer: page 53, line 1 to 34, Note of Proceedings dated 06.11.2025]

As for DW1, Geok See Hau giving evidence for the Defendants, he denied existence of formal purchase orders produced in Court. Hence,the defence emphasizes that no proper documentary purchase orders were ever produced by the Plaintiff. DW1 repeatedly pointed to absence of purchase orders and said Defendants were not put on clear notice by the pleadings. S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

On the issue of authenticity and for Delivery Orders remaining in Part C without originals, this Court assigns low evidential weight to these Delivery Orders, mainly;

(a) WhatsApp printouts showing copies of Delivery Orders shared within communication groups do not replace original evidence of delivery and receipt unless supported by strong facts, for example signed acceptance or written acknowledgment by the receiver shortly thereafter.

(b) The Plaintiff submitted a large statement of account (SOA) and the Court acknowledges that the SOA, is only a summary document, but the burden of proof lies on the primary documents like invoices, Goods Receipt Notes (GRN), delivery/acceptance evidence to be produced in support of the details in the SOA, namely the SOA has to be corroborated with supporting documents!

(c) If the SOA is unsupported by original invoices and delivery documents, then the Court assigns limited weight to unsupported SOAs. During the trial, I observed that some of the Plaintiff’s Invoices mentioned, were duplicated with the invoices issued by one Green Polypack Sdn Bhd (“GPSB”), S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw which is a related company to the Plaintiff. PW1 admitted that the contents of the Invoices issued by the Plaintiff and invoices issued by GPSB are IDENTICAL and he has knowledge of GPSB’s aforesaid invoices, as below. Refer page 10, line 22 to 27 of the Notes of Proceedings dated 07.11.2025 Refer page 11, line 1 to 14 and 36 to 37 of the Notes of Proceedings dated 07.11.2025 Refer page 12, line 15 to 30 of the Notes of Proceedings dated 07.11.2025 Refer page 13, line 1 to 5 and 11 to 16 of the Notes of Proceedings dated 07.11.2025

(d) Discrepancies exist between two sets of SOAs and inconsistencies between the Plaintiff’s invoices and third-party documents, namely Mydin and Green Polypack SB. These discrepancies undermine the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claims for the large amounts claimed. The Mydin Documents.

The Plaintiff likewise, partially relies on Mydin documents to show that goods reached end customers. However, there are dates and item discrepancies between Delivery Orders, Plaintiff’s invoices, S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw and Mydin documents. These documents explain that Mydin did indeed receive goods from more than one supplier and in my opinion, the Mydin documents are not exclusive proof that delivery was made solely by the Plaintiff.

At trial, the witness testified and conceded, that the quantities and unit prices could not be readily reconciled item‑by‑item across all the invoices as the reconciliation process would take time. Therefore, the Mydin documents are insufficient to prove that the said goods delivered to Mydin, was solely completed for the 1st Defendant. Differences and Identity of Invoices (Green Polypack)

During the course of trial, the Plaintiff’s counsel, had initially objected GPSB’s invoices on the ground that GPSB’s invoices were not pleaded and therefore not relevant. However, both counsels subsequently agreed to place GPSB’s invoices as Part B documents and informed this court on their intentions to do so. [Refer: page 31, line 8 to 12, Note of Proceedings dated 19.11.2025] [Refer: page 3 to 9, Defendant’s Bundle of Documents, Enclosure 134, Bundle B3] S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

To progress further, this Court takes seriously the issue raised by the Defendant that some of the Plaintiff’s invoices are identical or nearly similar to invoices issued by GPSB. In my view, that is a red flag as the Plaintiff must be able to account for specific items if alleging goods sold and delivered. Chia Fai Chee (trading under the name and style of Golden Land Construction) v Romspect Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 2899; Kienson Hardware Sdn Bhd v Sanjung Sepang Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2025] MLJU 2689

The predicament, that arises with identical invoices, raise risk of duplicate invoicing and claiming for the same goods twice or uncertainty about which supplier actually supplied which goods and to which customers. If GPSB invoiced the customer for the same items, Plaintiff must explain the connection and why duplicate invoices were issued. The failure of the Plaintiff to explain indicates the overstating of the Plaintiff’s claim namely the double recovery risk. In my opinion, this evidence of double claims supports the Defendants proposition, that Plaintiff’s invoices are unreliable and may be struck down. So Sun Sing Sdn Bhd v Setia Indah Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 3318 [Tab 24 DBOA] S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

Based on all the evidence before me, there were weaknesses in the Statement of Claim, as it lacked specifics or elements of the goods sold and delivered. Mainly during the course of trial, invoices or delivery orders lacked corroborative evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim as it stands in the SOC. The Plaintiff’s witness also admitted during trial, that he was unable to provide this court the originals and clearly struggled with matching the delivery orders with in Mydin documents creating inconsistencies on verification

This court holds that the credibility of the Plaintiff’s witness, is weakened, where his answers were altered and he could not recall as well as mis-identified critical documents. It is clear that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof to claim the total amount alleged in the Statement of Claim for the following main reasons:

(a) Failure to provide material particulars within the Statement of Claim namely dates, invoice numbers, Deliver Order numbers, delivery details, which prevents the Defendant from being properly notified of the claim particulars and S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw renders the trial based on documents marked only as part of the bundle as an afterthought;

(b) Delivery Orders, which are central to proving delivery, were not produced in original form for most of the disputed Delivery Orders and remain in Part C and without originals or reasonable acknowledgment, the Court cannot assign the necessary weight to these Delivery Orders;

(c) Discrepancies and disputes between the Plaintiff’s invoices, Mydin documents, and third-party invoices (Green Polypack) create doubts about the integrity of the Plaintiff’s records and undermine the credibility of the substantial claims;

(d) The Plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof required to demonstrate that each claimed item was delivered to and received by the 1st Defendant.

(e) Claims against the 2nd Defendant also fail because the Plaintiff did not produce sufficient written evidence of any agreement or acknowledgment of liability by the 2nd Defendant Delivery Orders. Even though the specific payments by EV are acknowledged but were not proven to bind the 2nd Defendant contractually for the entire claim. S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw

For the reasons stated above, namely the lack of material particulars in the Statement of Claim, the absence of convincing original documents for many deliveries claimed, discrepancies and doubts regarding some invoices, and the failure to prove a basis for liability against the 2nd Defendant, the Court makes the following order, that the Plaintiff’s claims against both the Defendants based on goods sold and delivered is dismissed with cost of RM15,000.00. Dated: 4 April 2026 SGD SHOBA DORAI RAJAH JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER SHAH ALAM HIGH COURT Solicitor for the Plaintiff: So Chien Hao with Nabilah bt Mat Som [MESSRS ZAILAN & CO.] Solicitor for the Defendants: Tan Eng Keat [MESSRS GAN, LEE & TAN] S/N EyIzweWmoEl0zVcWxTqGw