Shinith Palolathil v Anura Bandara Herath (BA-11BNCvC-23-08/2024)

This appeal arises from a dispute that is as personal as it is legal. It relates to the designing and funding of a kitchen renovation between two individuals once on close terms. At its heart lies a simple but contested question of whether the funding of the renovation was undertaken pursuant to an oral binding agreement for reimbursement or was it a generous, perhaps impulsive, gesture made without expectation of repayment. The Appellant/Plaintiff contended that it was the former, in that he undertook the funding of the renovation at the request of the Respondent/Defendant and his wife, based on an understanding that he would be repaid. The Respondent/Defendant, on the other hand, insisted that there was no such agreement, and that if the Appellant chose to incur the cost, he did so voluntarily, without any promise or expectation of reimbursement.

As is often the case in civil litigation, this appeal turns on two irreconcilable narratives. The task before the Magistrate was to assess which version was more credible in light of the documentary and oral evidence presented. The credibility of witnesses, the plausibility of the parties’ accounts, and the conduct of both parties before and after the renovation all bore upon the court's ultimate finding.

The learned Magistrate found in favour of the Respondent/Defendant and dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim, awarding costs in the sum of RM4,718.00 pursuant to the applicable scale.

Dissatisfied with that outcome, the Appellant now brings this appeal.

The core issue before this Court is whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and/or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s claim for reimbursement of RM50,578.50 in kitchen renovation expenses. To determine this, the following sub-issues arise:

Whether there existed an oral agreement between the Appellant/Plaintiff and the Respondent/Defendant for the former to undertake and pay for the renovation works on the understanding that he would be reimbursed;

Whether the learned Magistrate had properly considered and appreciated the evidence in concluding that no such oral agreement was established; and

Whether the learned Magistrate’s findings were so plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence as to warrant appellate intervention. [6] This Court is tasked with evaluating whether the Appellant/Plaintiff has shown any appealable error justifying the reversal of the Magistrate’s decision by way of re-hearing. Summary of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s Case [7] The Appellant/Plaintiff was a professional chef with experience in kitchen design. He asserted that, at the request and with the agreement of the Respondent/Defendant and his wife, he undertook and paid for the renovation of their kitchen at their residence in Damansara Perdana. [8] Signature Kitchen was engaged as the contractor, and the total cost of the renovation amounting to RM50,578.50 was borne by the Appellant through various payment methods, including online transfers, cheques, and third-party credit card payments. [9] The Appellant/Plaintiff contended that the design and renovation plans were approved by both the Respondent/Defendant and his wife, who had been actively involved in selecting the appliances and materials. [10] More importantly, the Appellant/Plaintiff asserted that the renovation works were carried out with the Respondent/Defendant and his wife’s knowledge and without objection. [11] Following completion, the Respondent/Defendant and his wife used the renovated kitchen without raising any complaint. [12] When the Appellant/Plaintiff later sought reimbursement, the Respondent failed to provide a definitive response. A letter of demand sent in May 2021 was not answered, prompting the Appellant/Plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings in April 2022. [13] The Appellant/Plaintiff denied that the renovation was a gift and maintained that the arrangement had been a mutual agreement between the parties. He submitted that the learned Magistrate had erred in dismissing his claim, as sufficient evidence, both documentary and circumstantial, had been presented to establish the existence of an agreement and that the payments had been made on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant. Summary of the Respondent/Defendant’s Submissions [14] The Respondent/Defendant contended that there was no appealable error committed by the learned Magistrate in arriving at her decision to dismiss the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim. [15] It was submitted that the learned Magistrate had correctly appreciated the facts and evidence before her, and had applied the relevant legal principles appropriately. The Respondent/Defendant argued that the Appellant/Plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of an oral agreement between the parties for reimbursement of the renovation expenses. [16] The Respondent/Defendant further submitted that the learned Magistrate was entitled to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant/Plaintiff had not established a legally enforceable claim against him. The evidence relied upon by the Appellant/Plaintiff was said to be insufficient, inconsistent, and failed to prove that the payments made were anything other than voluntary, or that they were made at the Respondent/Defendant’s request and with the expectation of repayment. [17] In light of the foregoing, the Respondent/Defendant submitted that there was no basis for appellate intervention. The Respondent/Defendant therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs, and that the learned Magistrate’s decision be affirmed. Findings and Conclusion [18] This Court has carefully scrutinized the learned Magistrate’s grounds of judgment. The pertinent paragraphs and findings were as follows: [22] Plaintif dalam hujahannya telah berhujah bahawa wujud perjanjian lisan antara Plaintif dan Defendan kerana:

Defendan telah memberi kebenaran kepada Plaintif dan kakitangan Signature Kitchen untuk memasuki Premis tersebut untuk mengambil ukuran dan juga mengeluarkan dapur lama untuk meletak dapur yang baru;

Defendan telah membenarkan kakitangan Signature Kitchen untuk berada di Premis tersebut semasa membuat pengubahsuaian;

Defendan telah membenarkan PW2 untuk hadir dirumah Defendan bagi mengawasi pekerja-pekerja Signature Kitchen semasa pengubahsuaian dilaksanakan; dan

Plaintif yang mereka cipta design tersebut untuk Signature Kitchen memasangnya mengikut persetujuan Defendan. [23] Dalam hal ini, tidak dinafikan bahawa pengubahsuaian di Premis tersebut sememangnya telah dilaksanakan oleh Signature Kitchen. Jadi mestilah tiada halangan untuk kakitangan dan pekerja-pekerja Signature Kitchen memasuki Premis tersebut untuk melaksanakan pengubahsuaian dapur rumah Defendan. [24] Persoalannya, bagaimana kebenaran yang diberi oleh Defendan bagi memasuki Premis tersebut dapat membuktikan wujud perjanjian lisan untuk membayar kos pengubahsuaian di Premis tersebut? [25] Perlu ditekankan bahawa kes Plaintif adalah spesifik. Plaintif mendakwa wujud perjanjian lisan untuk pembayaran balik kos pengubahsuaian. Tujuan perjanjian lisan yang diplidkan wujud tersebut adalah UNTUK Defendan membayar balik kos pengubahsuaian. Hujahan Plaintif di perenggan 22(a), (b) dan (c) di atas TIDAK membuktikan dakwaan tersebut dan ianya juga TIDAK menyokong dakwaan bahawa Defendan telah memasuki perjanjian lisan untuk membayar balik kos pengubahsuaian tersebut. Hujahan-hujahan tersebut, hanya membuktikan, bahawa pengubahsuaian di Premis tersebut sememangnya telah dilaksanakan oleh Signature Kitchen dengan kehadiran PW2. [26] Selain itu, hujahan Plaintif bahawa Plaintif yang mereka cipta design tersebut untuk Signature Kitchen berdasarkan persetujuan Defendan juga tidak sama sekali pembuktikan wujud perjanjian lisan antara Plaintif dan Defendan untuk tujuan pembayaran balik kos pengubahsuaian. [27] Tiada sebarang bukti dokumentari atau keterangan yang dirujuk oleh Plaintif bagi menyokong (a) kononnya Plaintif telah mereka cipta design atau (b) persetujuan Plaintif berbuat demikian, sememangnya menunjukkan sebenarnya Defendan akan membayar balik kos pengubahsuaian. …. [29] Namun begitu, walaupun reka cipta design pengubahsuaian dapur Premis tersebut sebahagiannya dipersetujui, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa perkara ini tidak membuktikan wujudnya perjanjian lisan antara Plaintif dan Defendan untuk membayar balik kos pengubahsualan di Premis tersebut. ….. [33] Namun, berdasarkan keterangan pihak-pihak dan bukti dokumentari, tiada sebarang elemen tawaran, penerimaan dan balasan antara Plaintif dengan Defendan yang dibuktikan oleh Plaintif. [19] In addition, the learned Magistrate properly considered the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 concerning the burden of proof, specifically, sections 101, 102, and 103, including on whom the burden lies and the burden of proof as to particular facts. [20] In addressing the issue of whether a binding oral agreement existed between the parties, the learned Magistrate appropriately referred to a range of authorities that articulate the relevant legal principles. These included Achi a/p Suppiah v Devamurthy a/l Suppiah [2009] AMEJ 0166; [2010] 8 MLJ 189; [2009] 6 MLRH 672, Nor Rosnani bte Ibrahim v Azlan Shan bin Jaffril & Anor [2020] AMEJ 0127; [2020] CLJU 289; [2020] MLJU 260; [2020] MLRHU 168, Tan Ah Kow & Anor v Tan Chaui En [2017] AMEJ 0839; [2018] 2 CLJ 610; [2017] 6 MLJ 297; [2017] 6 MLRA 141, Teras Kimia Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia [2013] 2 AMCR 108; [2013] 6 CLJ 219; [2014] 7 MLJ 584; [2014] 4 MLRH 429, Eng Song Aluminium Industries Sdn Bhd v Keat Siong Property Sdn Bhd [2018] 3 AMR 774; [2018] 9 CLJ 311; [2018] 5 MLJ 380; [2018] 6 MLRA 194 and Dahan Cipta Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yong Tshu Khin & Ors and other appeals [2017] 1 CLJ 257; [2016] MLJU 966; [2016] 6 MLRA 460. [21] The learned Magistrate was also not convinced that all the payments to Signature Kitchen had been made personally by the Appellant/Plaintiff. [22] Having carefully independently considered the entirety of the evidence presented before the Magistrates’ Court, the written and oral submissions of both parties, as well as the applicable legal principles, this Court finds no basis to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. [23] The Appellant/Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the learned Magistrate had erred in fact or in law, or that the findings were plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence on record. [24] This Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate’s decision was grounded in a proper evaluation of the evidence, particularly in respect of whether there existed a binding agreement for reimbursement of the renovation expenses. Her reasons were clear, supported by the facts, and in accordance with settled legal principles on burden of proof and contractual intention. [25] As no appealable error has been shown, this Court affirms the decision of the Magistrates Court in dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. [26] This appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. [27] The Appellant/Plaintiff to pay costs of RM5,000.00 to the Respondent/Defendant. Dated: 6 June, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Habeeb Rahman bin Asamarathar Anwardeen for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Messrs. Prema, Bala, Habeeb Rahman & Associates) Mohamad Zaiful Bahrin bin Kamde for the Respondent/Defendant (Messrs. Amin Petra & Partners)