J&T Express (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Aer Empire Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCC-157-08/2024)

AER EMPIRE SDN. BHD. (No. Pendaftaran: 202101020677 (1420977-A))

MUHAMMAD MURSHID BIN ABU HASSAN (No. K/P: 941102-07-5025) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 12 for Summary Judgment. The Central Issue [2] As the Defendant has not raised any preliminary objections in relation to the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 12, the essential issue is purely one of whether the Defendant is able to satisfy this Court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the Plaintiff’s claim within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3 of the Rule of Court 2012. The Background Facts and the Parties’ Respective Contentions [3] The Plaintiff’s claim is for RM1,005,682.67 with interest calculated thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until the date of full settlement thereof to be paid jointly and severally by the Defendants. [4] This claim arose from two collaboration agreements entered into between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant on 1 November, 2023 and 1 February, 2024. [5] These agreements provide for the First Defendant to operate Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326 as Premium Delivery Points respectively. [6] The Plaintiff averred that under the agreed terms of the Agreements, the First Defendant had acknowledged and agreed, inter alia, that:-

the Plaintiff shall be entitled to directly deduct the Delivery Fee on Deliver (“DFOD”) and other applicable charges under the Agreements from the amount and/or commissions payable to the 1st Defendant under the Business Account maintained with the Plaintiff;

the Plaintiff shall be entitled to directly deduct the Cash on Delivery (“COD”) from the advance amount in the COD Account maintained with the Plaintiff; and

the First Defendant’s services in respect of Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326 shall be suspended and/or restricted in any event that the amount maintained under the COD Account is insufficient to be deducted or falls below the prescribed minimum amount as stated under the Agreements. [7] It was the Plaintiff’s contention that during the performance of the Agreements for Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326, the First Defendant had failed to remit the COD to the Plaintiff as per the terms of the Agreements. Following the said breach and settlement negotiation between the parties, the Plaintiff and the First Defendant had entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 18 June, 2024 (“the Settlement Agreement”) whereby it was agreed, inter alia, that:-

the Agreements shall be terminated effective 30 June, 2024 (“the Termination Date”); and

the First Defendant shall pay the outstanding sums accrued in respect of Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326 during the performance and/or the execution of the Agreements (Clause 3.1 of the Settlement Agreement). [8] On 20 June, 2024, the Second Defendant had executed a Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity to, inter alia, guarantee the payment for all amounts due and payable by First Defendant to the Plaintiff. [9] The Plaintiff further submitted that as at 11 July, 2024, there was a total outstanding sum of RM1,131,807.06, that is, RM553,757.69 in respect of Outlet Code KTN321 and RM578,049.37 in respect of Outlet Code KTN326 due and payable by the First Defendant to the Plaintiff. On 15 July, 2024, the Plaintiff had vide its solicitors, Messrs Chai & Partners issued a letter to the Defendants to demand the payment of the sum of RM1,131,807.06. As the First Defendant and/or the Second Defendant had failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the sum of RM1,131,807.06 and/or any part thereof to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff stated that as at 31 July, 2024, the First Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM1,131,841.86. However, the Plaintiff had deducted the sum of RM76,159.19 from the amounts payable by the Plaintiff to the First Defendant under the Business Accounts for Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326 and utilised the same towards reducing the First Defendant’s indebtedness towards the Plaintiff and on 6 August, 2024, the Plaintiff had again vide its solicitors issued a letter to the Defendants to demand the sum of RM1,055,682.67 to be paid within 7 days from the date of the letter. [10] It was pointed out by the Plaintiff that the First Defendant did make a payment of RM50,000.00 to the Plaintiff on 17 August, 2024, thus leaving the sum of RM1,005,682.67 as the Final Outstanding Sum. [11] The Plaintiff further cited and relied on the cases of Shim Vui Geh v Dayang Masturah bt Sahari and another appeal [2023] 8 AMR 607; [2023] 10 CLJ 733; [2024] 1 MLJ 755; [2024] 1 MLRA 392 and AWC Berhad (Formerly known as AWC Facility Solutions Berhad) v Point-Euro Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [2012] 2 AMCR 453; [2012] MLJU 474; [2012] 6 MLRH 87 to support its application in Enclosure 12. [12] The Plaintiff also relied on Clause 3.1 of the Settlement Agreement and the partial payment in the sum of RM50,000.00 as an admission of the debt by the First Defendant. [13] Clause 3.1 of the Settlement Agreement reads as follows: In consideration of preventing any future disputes regarding the above matter, AER hereby willingly, irrevocably and unconditionally agrees to settle the Total Outstanding Sum and any other outstanding sums accrued during the performance and/or execution of the Agreements. [14] On this point of admission, the Plaintiff referred this Court to the case of Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 AMR 2871; [1995] 4 CLJ 283; [1995] 3 MLJ 331; [1995] 1 MLRA 738. [15] The Defendants’ entire defence hinges on the assertation that the Plaintiff had agreed to reduce the outstanding sum due and owing by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. [16] The Defendants’ major arguments are as follows: • Defendan Pertama telah menandatangani satu Perjanjian Penyelesaian bertarikh 8.6.2024 (“Perjanjian Penyelesaian tersebut”) memandangkan pihak-pihak telah bersetuju untuk menyelesaikan secara baik dimana kedua-dua pihak telah bersetuju terhadap terma-terma penyelesaian seperti yang telah dibincangkan di dalam satu mesyuarat bertarikh 30.5.2024. • Berdasarkan kepada mesyuarat tersebut, Plantif telah bersetuju untuk mengurangkan jumlah keberhutangan Defendan Pertama, dan disebabkan persetujuan itu, Defendan Pertama telah menandatangani Perjanjian Penyelesaian tersebut. • Defendan Kedua juga telah menandatangani satu Perjanjian Jaminan pada 20.6.2024 (“Perjanjian Jaminan tersebut”) untuk menunjukkan kesungguhan Defendan-Defendan untuk mencapai satu penyelesaian yang terbaik antara dua pihak. • Defendan-Defendan juga telah bertindak untuk membayar sebanyak RM50,000.00 pada 17.8.2024 untuk menunjukkan usaha Defendan-Defendan untuk menyelesaikan keberhutangan tersebut. • Namun Plaintif telah meneruskan untuk memfailkan writ saman terhadap Defendan-Defendan dan menuntut jumlah yang tidak dipersetujui semasa perbincangan. • Defendan-Defendan telah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa Defendan-Defendan memang terhutang kepada Plaintif, tetapi jumlah tertunggak Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif bukan jumlah yang dituntut oleh Plaintif di dalam tindakan ini [17] In view of the above, it was the Defendants’ contention that “Defendan-Defendan menyatakan bahawa jumlah terhutang Defendan Pertama yang didakwa oleh Plaintif adalah tidak tepat dan benar. Jumlah yang didakwa oleh Plaintif juga bukan merupakan jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam Perjanjian Penyelesaian tersebut. Tiada sebarang jumlah spesifik yang telah dinyatakan di dalam Perjanjian Penyelesaian tersebut memandangkan jumlah terhutang masih lagi di dalam pengiraan dan tidak dipersetujui oleh Defendan-Defendan”. [18] In addition to the above, the Defendants had alleged that the Plaintiff had agreed to pay for renovation costs of RM160,000.00 and that the Plaintiff had overcharged for the rental of lorries for Outlet Codes KTN321 and KTN326, that is, by imposing charges for July 2024 despite the Agreements being terminated effective 30 June, 2024. The Decision of this Court [19] This Court has carefully considered the documentary evidence, the authorities cited and the submissions of the parties. [20] A question which this Court regards as decisive is whether there was an agreement by the Plaintiff to reduce the outstanding sum. [21] The answer to that key question may be traced to the minutes of the meeting between the parties. [22] Based on the extract of the minutes of meeting held between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on 30 May, 2024, there is no evidence of the Plaintiff having “agreed” and/or “consented” and/or “acquiesced” to any reduction of the Defendants’ indebtedness towards the Plaintiff. [23] On the allegation by the Defendants that the Plaintiff had agreed to pay for renovation costs of RM160,000.00, this Court is unable to find any evidence to support such a contention. [24] This Court also finds that the sum of RM77,787.15 imposed by the Plaintiff on the First Defendant was rental charges of the lorries for the months of April 2024, May 2024 and June 2024 only. [25] In view of the above findings, this Court finds that the Defendants are justly and truly indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of RM1,005,682.67. [26] Prayer (1) in Enclosure 12 is allowed. [27] The Defendants to pay costs of RM20,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Dated: 25 February, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Joshua Tan Jo-Ven for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Chai & Partners) Khairul Anuar bin Khasim for the Defendants (Messrs. Khairil, Hafizullah & Hanisah)