T-One Motor Works Sdn Bhd v Yap Pui Har (WA-A72NCvC-1486-04/2024)

Issues for Determination Whether the Defendant was obligated to provide services or return the sums received. 27/11/2024 13:48:47

Whether the Defendant’s actions amount to a total failure of consideration or unjust enrichment.

Whether the Defendant has raised bona fide triable issues that necessitate a trial. Legal Principles Order 14 permits summary judgment only when the court is satisfied that the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim. Case law such as Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail [1992] 1 MLJ 400 emphasises that even a single triable issue justifies refusing summary judgment. In Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying [2006] 2 MLJ 685, it was held that cases involving complex disputes or allegations require a full trial for proper examination. Total failure of consideration, as recognised in Giga Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd v. Yip Chee Seng & Sons Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 449, occurs when payments made for services or goods are not fulfilled. Similarly, as highlighted in Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548, unjust enrichment arises when funds are retained without fulfilling their intended purpose.

Analysis and Decision The RM72,500 Claim The Plaintiff claims that payments were made for services that the Defendant failed to provide, supported by evidence of cheque transactions. The Defendant disputes this, asserting that the payments were related to a third party, Yap Chee Ming. While the Defendant’s narrative lacks robust evidence, it raises factual disputes regarding the purpose of the payments. The absence of a formal agreement further complicates the Plaintiff’s case, leaving room for differing interpretations.

The RM1,409 Claim The Plaintiff provided evidence of the DuitNow transfer, alleging unjust enrichment. The Defendant has not substantively addressed why the funds were retained or why the phone was not procured. While the Plaintiff’s claim appears straightforward, the Defendant’s broader defence introduces ambiguity that warrants trial-level scrutiny.

Procedural Concerns The Defendant’s reliance on a third-party narrative introduced during the affidavit stage is procedurally irregular. However, procedural flaws do not negate the court’s obligation to consider whether substantive issues exist. In this case, the Defendant’s explanation raises questions about the underlying transactions that cannot be dismissed outright. Given the unresolved factual disputes and the absence of a clear agreement, the court finds that genuine triable issues exist, necessitating a full trial. Conclusion The Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment is dismissed with costs of RM1,000. This decision ensures that the claims and defences are thoroughly examined at trial. 26 November 2024