Conan Medical Technology Berhad v Vquest Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-576-08/2023)

VQUEST SDN BHD …DEFENDANTS (Company No.: 201001007618 [892240-X])

WEE SOON HING (IC No.: 710216-03-5111) (disaman atas kapasiti sebagai agen dan/atau wakil Defendan-Defendan) Judgment [Trial - Debtor’s failure to dispute invoice is fatal]

This is a trial heard over 2 days in 2025 against the 1st defendant only. The suit against the 2nd defendant had been struck out and no appeal was lodged by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff’s claim against the 1st defendant is for unpaid goods that were ordered by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff and delivered to a third party by the name of My Feta Marketing Sdn Bhd (‘’My Feta’’). The sole defence of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff should sue My Feta as the goods were delivered to My Feta at the instructions of the 1st defendant.

Oral submissions by counsel were held before me on 21-10-2025 and on 11-12-2025. On 03-02-2026, I delivered decision and allowed the plaintiff’s claim against the 1st defendant as set out in the Statement of Claim [Enclosure 2] at paragraph15 [a] to [b] with costs of RM 50,000 subject to allocatur.

I also dismissed the 1st defendant’s Counterclaim with costs of RM 10,000 subject to allocatur.

On 09-02-2026, an appeal was filed by the 1st defendant to the Court of Appeal against my decision in respect of the plaintiff’s claim. No appeal was lodged in respect of the dismissal of the 1st defendant’s Counterclaim. These are my Grounds of Judgment. Background facts

The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 2016 with its address for service at B-10-1, Northpoint, Mid Valley City, No. 1, Medan Syed Putra Utara, 59200 Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

At all material times, the plaintiff has been engaged in the business of supplying, selling, and delivering health-related products and kits to its customers.

The 1st defendant is a company duly incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 2016, with its registered address at A- 18-3A, Level 18, EkoCheras Office Tower A, 56000 Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and its business address at No. 4-2, Jalan Pekaka 8/3, Seksyen 8, Kota Damansara, 47820 Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

The 2nd defendant is Wee Soon Hing who is a manager with the 1st defendant. Plaintiff’s pleaded case

The plaintiff contends its claim against the 1st defendant is as set out below.

Its claim against the 1st defendant is for the sum of RM 1,078,662.80 as at 28-09-2022 for the supply, sale, and delivery of pharmaceutical products to the 1st defendant, namely the item known as Wiz Bio-Tech SARS CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Nasal Swab (“Goods”), the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the recipient, My Feta.

The sale of the Goods transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was made pursuant to a request by Wee Soon Hing [2nd defendant] who had approached the plaintiff’s representative known as Ker Tze Yun (“Yines’’) and had sought the plaintiff’s service of supplying, selling and delivering the Goods to the 1st defendant and other companies as per the 1st defendant’s instructions.

It is the plaintiff’s case that the Goods were duly delivered to My Feta pursuant to the instructions given by Wee Soon Hing. The proof of delivery can be seen at pages 45, 46, 49 & 50 of Bundle

From time to time, the plaintiff had issued monthly statements of the account to the 1st defendant as well as reminder emails and letters (refer to pages 9, 10, 13, 14 & 15 of Bundle B1) but no payment was made for the shipment to My Feta. The 1st defendant’s Defence & Counterclaim

In response, the 1st defendant denies any liability to pay. The 1st defendant contends the plaintiff sued the wrong party and should file the claim against My Feta instead of the 1st defendant. [see 1st defendant’s written submissions Enclosure 80 at paragraph 111[a] and Enclosure 6 Defence at paragraph 14].

The 1st defendant contends it is only an agent for My Feta. [See Enclosure 6 Defence at paragraph 3[f]].

The 1st defendant also counterclaims for RM 3,500.00 per month being the rental storage charge for the Goods from 06-04-2023 until the Goods are completely removed from the factory by the plaintiff. [See Enclosure 6 Defence at paragraph 21[a]].

The following witnesses testified during the trial for the plaintiff: - i. Chen Zhaogui (“PW1”). Witness Statement (Enclosure 49); and ii. Ker Tze Yun [“PW2”]. Witness Statement (Enclosure 57).

The 1st defendant called one witness-i. The 2nd defendant in the suit. Witness Statement (Enclosure 48);

There are only two issues before me at the trial. They are-i. Whether the plaintiff had sued the wrong party and should have filed the claim against My Feta instead of the 1st defendant; and ii. Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to its counterclaim for RM 3,500 per month being the rental storage charge for the Goods from 06-04-2023 until the Goods are completely removed from the factory. Court’s analysis

I start with issue 2 first as the 1st defendant did not appeal against my decision on this issue. In my view this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

The 1st defendant and DW1 could not produce any supporting documents demonstrating that the 1st defendant had incurred such rental costs.

The 1st defendant’s sole witness, DW1, conceded during cross-examination that he possessed no documentary evidence whatsoever to substantiate this counterclaim. Page 66 Notes of Proceedings NAZIHA … I’m referring you to page 4 of your witness statement. Q&A no.4. Paragraph 4, here you mentioned that the “1st defendant have to bear the cost of storing the kits at the factory”, right. So, my question is can you show to the court any sought of evidence regarding this; regarding these alleged storing kits of RM3,500 monthly in any bundle filed in this court? DW1 Sorry, it’s not here. NAZIHA It’s not here?

I now move to issue 1. Issue 1 - Whether the plaintiff had sued the wrong party and should have filed the claim against My Feta instead of the 1st defendant Invoice sued on by the plaintiff was clearly stated as “Bill to 1st defendant”.

The plaintiff is suing on an unpaid invoice no CMT-202203-002 dated 10-03-2022 for RM 1,575,760. This sum was later reduced to the claimed sum of RM 1,078,662.80 [See Statement of Claim IP page 14] as two credit notes were issued to reduce the sum payable. [See B1 pages 26 and 27].

I observe that the invoice was clearly addressed to the 1st defendant and stated as “Bill to 1st defendant” and “Ship to My Feta”. The 1st defendant did not at any time object to this invoice or the statements therein “Bill to 1st defendant” and “Ship to My Feta”.

Likewise, the two credit notes were issue to the 1st defendant. Again the 1st defendant did not at any time protested and said it should be addressed to My Feta.

The receipt of the invoice and the two credit notes are admitted by the 1st defendant in its Defence at paragraphs 3 [n] and [q]. [See Defence at IP page 22].

The statements of outstanding account were also addressed to the 1st defendant and not to My Feta. [See B1 paged 13 and 15]. The letter of demand was also addressed to the 1st defendant and not to My Feta. [See B1 page 14]. Again the 1st defendant did not at any time protest and said it should be addressed to My Feta.

In view of the contemporaneous evidence above and having heard the three witnesses, I believe the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses and am of the view the plaintiff has proven its contention.

The testimony of PW 2 supports the plaintiff’s case against the 1st defendant. PW2 (Yines Ker) testified that the plaintiff never received instructions to invoice My Feta. On the contrary, the plaintiff was consistently instructed by DW1, acting for the 1st defendant, that the Goods were to be delivered to My Feta but invoiced to Vquest / 1st defendant. This was confirmed by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, where Mr Wee wrote: “PO is from Vquest but in your case normally on verbal agreement on quantity will do and invoice to Vquest.” (refer to page 35 Bundle B1) The 1st defendant had previously paid for similar deliveries to other third parties

The evidence shows that the 1st defendant routinely ordered goods from the plaintiff and instructed delivery to third party companies — including MyVantros, GPS Endurance (M) Sdn Bhd, Century Biotech Sdn Bhd and DPC Healthcare Sdn Bhd. (refer to pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 & 23 of Bundle B1).

There was a letter of demand from the plaintiff to the 1st defendant dated 03-11-2022. There was a further letter of demand from the plaintiff’s solicitors to the 1st defendant dated 14-12-2022. No reply or denial was sent by the 1st defendant to these two letters. [See B1 pages 73 and 74]. Adverse inference drawn

The 1st defendant contends My Feta is liable to pay. The 1st defendant also contends it is only an agent for My Feta. [See Defence at paragraph 3[f]]. However, no witness from My Feta was called by the 1st defendant or subpoenaed to testify to support its allegation.

The court will draw an adverse inference against the 1st defendant for the said failure under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950. [See Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd & Anor v The Owners of and/or Any Other Persons Interested in the Ship or Vessel the ‘Borcos Takdir’ [2012] 5 MLJ 515 at [92], HC, per Nallini Pathmanathan J and Marappan A/L Muthusamy v R Sivam A/L Ramasamy [2014] 4 MLJ 428 at [28], CA, per Rohana Yusuf JCA].

In Emperee Industries Sdn Bhd v Genagco Sdn Bhd [1987] CLJ Rep 591, HC, at page 591, VC George J held that: - “The defendants have not even attempted to explain away any of those documents exhibited in the application for summary judgment namely delivery order, invoices, the statement of account and the 3 letters. If in fact they had not ordered the goods surely they would have done something about the delivery order erroneously being addressed to them and they would also have violently protested when they were invoiced for somebody else’s order.”

In AmFinance Bhd v Ultimate Eight Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 1 MLJ 210, CA, the Court of Appeal held that the failure to dispute give rise to judgment in favour of the plaintiff there - “… Besides, apart from the respondents criticising the inaccuracy or discrepancy of the contents in exhs p25, P26 and P27, the respondent themselves have failed to show what are the actual figures should have been. It was incumbent on the respondents to dispute the figures right from the 1st letter of demand was issued by the appellant.”

Similarly, here the fact that the 1st defendant kept silent after receiving the invoice for payment, reminders for payment and statement of account from the plaintiff for payment to be paid leads me to view the 1st defendant’s witness as not telling the truth.

For the reasons above, I allow the plaintiff’s claim against the 1st defendant as set out in the Statement of Claim [Enclosure 2] at paragraph15 [a] to [b] with costs of RM 50,000 subject to allocatur.

I also dismiss the 1st defendant’s Counterclaim with costs of RM 10,000 subject to allocatur. Dated: 09th March 2026 …………(signed)…………… Leong Wai Hong Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCC 6) Counsel for plaintiffs: Naziha Bte Ahmad Rupaii and Hing Hong Ing. Hing Chambers (Subang Jaya). Counsel for defendants: Dinesh Nandrajog and Syahana Azhari Nandrajog (Shah Alam). CASES REFERRED TO: 1) AmFinance Bhd v Ultimate Eight Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 1 MLJ 210, CA. 2) Emperee Industries Sdn Bhd v Genagco Sdn Bhd [1987] CLJ Rep 591, HC. 3) Marappan A/L Muthusamy v R Sivam A/L Ramasamy [2014] 4 MLJ 428, CA. 4) Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd & Anor v The Owners of and/or Any Other Persons Interested in the Ship or Vessel the ‘Borcos Takdir’ [2012] 5 MLJ 515 at [92], HC. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Evidence Act 1950, section 114 Illustration (g).