Qindar Business Solution v Holzern Furniture Sdn Bhd (JB-12BNCvC-24-09/2025)

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI MUAR DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: JB-12BNCVC-24-09/2025 ANTARA QINDAR BUSINESS SOLUTION (No. Pendaftaran: 201703250721 [JR0079742-V]) … PERAYU DAN HOLZERN FURNITURE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 200901038321 [881453-U]) … RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI BATU PAHAT DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO.: JB-B52NCVC-4-06/2022 ANTARA 29/04/2026 16:51:50 JB-12BNCvC-24-09/2025 Kand. 35 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 QINDAR BUSINESS SOLUTION (No. Pendaftaran: 201703250721 [JR0079742-V]) … PLAINTIF DAN HOLZERN FURNITURE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 200901038321 [881453-U]) … DEFENDAN JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION

1. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were before the Sessions Court. The Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendant’s Counterclaim were dismissed with no order as to costs by the Learned Sessions Court Judge. This is the Plaintiff's appeal against the decision. The Defendant did not file any appeal against the dismissal of the counterclaim. This appeal proceeded without the grounds of the Learned Sessions Court Judge’s decision, as she retired after delivering her decision via e-review on 26.8.2025. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2. Her decision states as follows: - “Upon examining the pleadings, hearing the evidence of the witnesses for both parties, considering all the documents tendered, and having evaluated the written submissions filed by both parties, this Court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiff has failed to prove its claim against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is dismissed. Further, the Defendant also failed to prove its claim against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the counterclaim against the Plaintiff is dismissed. There was no order as to costs.”

3. Briefly, the Plaintiff claims to recover payment for work done (reports completed) allegedly instructed by the Defendants and completed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant denied appointing the Plaintiff to prepare the reports and further denied ever agreeing to any quotation or price for their preparation. PRINCIPLE OF LAW ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION

4. It is a well-established principle that an appeal from the Subordinate Court to the High Court is by way of rehearing: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Section 29 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Order 55 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012.

5. It is trite law that an appellate court may interfere with findings of fact by a trial court when it is shown that the trial court was plainly wrong in arriving at its conclusion or where there has been insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. In the absence of such error, the appellate court ought not to interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial court. (Case: Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67; Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453). DECISON OF THE COURT

6. In the present appeal, there are several aspects of the Plaintiff’s evidence that cast doubt on the Plaintiff’s case.

7. The Plaintiff’s failure to establish a binding contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff failed to establish the essential elements required to form a valid contract. The “invoice” relied by the Plaintiff was never accepted/confirmed by the Defendant at any time. There was also no appointment **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 letter from the Defendant and the Plaintiff also failed to produce any such document.

8. The alleged indebtedness of the Defendant to the Plaintiff is riddled with some uncertainties and is not as straightforward as contended by the Plaintiff. Several critical questions remain unanswered, such as: -

(ii) The Plaintiff’s allegation that the confirmation of debt was hand delivered to the auditor’s office has been expressly denied by the subpoena witness from the auditor’s office. The witness testified that the alleged “acknowledgement receipt” on the confirmation of balance produced by the Plaintiff was not consistent with their practice, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the document.

(iii) The audit report expressly stated that the amount of RM 317,398.90 was subject to litigation. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6

(iv) The document is with the name of the Company and not a request issued by an external auditor. It is stated in that document that it is “for audit purposes,” which means it is for audit and not for any other purpose. It provided options to agree or disagree with the stated amount.

9. As such, it would not amount to an admission of debt in this case, and the cases of Ibai Golf & Country Club Bhd v Laman Kejora Sdn Bhd [2019] 12 MLJ 446 and Sagujuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd v Trane Malaysia Sales & Services Sdn Bhd [2014] 5 MLJ 535, relied on by the Plaintiff, can be distinguished from the facts.

10. The Plaintiff called only one witness, PW1, and his testimony remained inconsistent with his own claims and his credibility was severely undermined before the trial court, as can be seen on the detailed submissions on this issue (p/g 2069 - 2098 ROA, para 15 - 32).

11. There is uncertainty in the Plaintiff’s claim in that the quantum, being either RM 75,000.00 or RM 317,398.90 (as per the Plaintiff’s written submissions - enclosure 19). It is also noted that the issue of the quantum of the claim was not pleaded in the beginning. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 12. The trial Judge has made no mistake in assessing the evidence produced before the Court and the Judge has clearly considered all facts and submissions of the parties.

13. Premised on the above, this case does not warrant an appellate intervention and the appeal is dismissed with costs of RM 5,000.00. Dated 8th April 2026 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Appellant : Edmond Lee Hern with Elaine Foong Hui Ling Messrs Elaine, Yun & Associates **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 For the Respondent : Leong Zhi Hong Messrs Richard Wee Chambers **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal