Taccon Sdn Bhd v Universal Drillers Sdn Bhd (WA-12BC-23-11/2017)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court handed down on 31.10. 2017 after a full trial.

The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent, the defendant. For convenience the parties will be referred to in their respective capacities at the Sessions Court.

In this case, the learned Sessions Court Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s case against the defendant and granted a sum of RM571,232.42 in respect of defendant’s counterclaim against the plaintiff. 2

This appeal is therefore brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim arise from a contract entered into between the parties. This contact is contained in a letter of award dated 2.3.2013 that was issued by the plaintiff to, and accepted by, the defendant.

The plaintiff was appointed as a nominated sub-contractor to undertake the design and construction of the foundation for 75 units of residential houses on a piece of land in Bandar Putra Permai in the Mukim of Petaling. The dramatis personae for this project were the following:

The employer was Meridan Score Sdn Bhd (“Meridian”).

(ii) The Architect was Garis Architect Sdn Bhd (”Garis”).

(iii) The C & S Engineer was Jurutera Perunding YLT Sdn Bhd (“YLT”).

(iv) The Quantity Surveyor was THL Consultants (“THL”).

The M & E Engineer was TMC Engineers (“TMC”).

(vi) The Main Contractor was ACE Equity Sdn Bhd (“ACE”).

(vii) The defendant, Taccon Sdn Bhd, was the nominated sub-contractor. [6] The letter of award issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was for drilling work and installation of rock bolts for the said project. 3 [7] The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is particularised as follows: “10.1 Ujian Pull Out RM110,000.00

10.2 81 “Rock Bolt”

10.3 Pembesaran tapak dan Kerja-kerja tambahan asas

10.4 Ganti rugi yang ditentukan

10.5 JUMLAH RM565,697.36” [8] Out of the total sum of RM565,697.36 claimed, the plaintiff deducted a sum of RM235,569.07 due to the defendant, leaving the actual sum claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant being RM330,128.29. [9] The defendant denied the allegations made against it and thus the plaintiff’s claims. In addition the defendant contended that the various claims by the plaintiff totalling RM565,697.36 were not proven by the plaintiff. [10] The defendant instead, contended that it had carried out work under the contract but there was still a sum of RM571,979.42 due and owing to it by the plaintiff. This sum is the total remaining sum due and owing under 7 progressive claims issued by the defendant. By 4 reason thereof, a counterclaim was mounted by the defendant for a sum of RM571,979.42. The plaintiff’s contention [11] Learned counsel puts it plainly that the plaintiff’s claims are set out in 2 primary documents namely:

the letter from plaintiff to the defendant dated 28.1.2016 (“Letter of 28.1.2016”) and

(ii) an undated letter from the plaintiff to the defendant (the “Undated Letter”). [12] It is the plaintiff’s contention that the learned Sessions Court Judge had failed to take into account the fact that these 2 letters were sent to the defendant and they were not challenged before this action was filed. By reason of this fact, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant is deemed to have admitted the plaintiff’s claim. [13] The plaintiff contends that the Undated Letter also sets out the amount the defendant is entitled to and which amount had been deducted from the amount claimed by the plaintiff in its Letter of 28.1.2016. Thus, the actual amount claimed by the plaintiff is RM330,128.29. 5 Pull Out Test – RM110,000.00 [14] In relation to the plaintiff’s claim under this head, the plaintiff contends that the learned Sessions Court Judge did not consider paragraph a) of the Letter of 28.1.2016 which states as follows: “a) You were instructed by us via our letter dated 28 March 2014 (Appendix 1) to carry our remedial works on Blocks B4 & Block B5. You failed to do so and this had resulted in the Consulting Engineer carrying out 3 pull out tests. Two of the tests on the rock bolts in B4 & B5 failed. The claim by the main contractor is RM110,000.00 (Appendix 2) for these tests. Your project manager, Norzaidi met up with our Mr. Loh on the site and then met Mr. Tiam at the Sunway Club to discuss this matter. Universal Drillers Sdn Bhd had promised to move in the grouting machinery by 1st April 2014 but did not turn up to complete the remedial works. As a result, our main contractor decides on the 3 Nos. of pull out tests to check the integrity of the rock bolts at Block B4 & B5, which have similar problems. (Appendix 3 & Appendix 4). [15] In addition, the plaintiff contends that the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to take into account 4 other documents namely:

a document attachment to the Letter of 28.1.2016, prepared by the plaintiff setting out the pull out tests 6 conducted and setting out a total amount of RM128,000.00;

(ii) a letter from ACE to the plaintiff of 25.9.2013;

(iii) a letter from YLT to ACE dated 2.5.2014; and

(iv) another letter from YLT to ACE dated 21.2.2014. [16] As for the document attached to the Letter of 28.1.2016, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended again that it was not challenged before the action and, therefore, it must be taken as admitted. [17] The plaintiff contends that the letter from ACE to the plaintiff of 25.9.2013 shows that the work done by the defendant was shoddy and that was why the pull out test had to be carried out. This letter, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits, must be read together with the Letter of 28.1.2016 such as would link the rock bolts installed by the defendant to the shoddy work that YLT complained of. It was urged that the learned Sessions Court Judge failed to do this and this was where she fell into error. [18] The letter dated 2.5.2014 from YLT to ACE, it is submitted, proves that 2 out of 3 rock bolts installed were not satisfactory as they did not meet the design requirements. This, it is contended, is evidence of the need for remedial work. This too, it was submitted, was not considered by the learned Sessions Court Judge. 7 [19] Then, it is contended that the letter of 21.2.2014 from YLT to ACE, provided evidence of disputes over the rock bolts and piling installed on the site. This points to the fact that there were defective rock bolts constructed by the defendant. This too, it is alleged, was not considered by the learned Sessions Court Judge. [20] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the prior letters which led to the Letter of 28.1.2016 demonstrated clearly that the pull out tests were necessary. 81 Rock Bolt – RM103,802.00 [21] Again, it is contended, this claim turns on the said 4 letters that were not considered. [22] It was submitted that the Undated Letter shows that the plaintiff was underpaid by 81 rock bolts. This proves that there was a rejection of 81 rock bolts by ACE. The paragraph that is found in the Undated Letter that is said to be relevant states as follows: “You had indicated to us during our last meeting that you are willing to give us a discount of 5% of your contract value in lieu of us not pursuing the matter OUR supply of materials and paying you the labour rate for empty bore and grouting only. Our subcontract is not consistent with our subcontract with you as in your quotation; you are to supply all materials constituting the rock bolts. Material supply is never our responsibility and your profits for the full scope of works are included in your 8 rates. Since there are rates for normal installation of rock bolts and empty bore, we suggest that we use them and you give us a 7.5% discount off your contract value. If not, we will revert back to having a mark up on our supply of materials or paying you on actual labour only for affected blocks. If that is agreeable to you, then the outstanding amount owe to you is: Total subcontract value $ 1,435,225.91. Payment to you $ 922,975.80 Materials used $ 169,039.10 Discount at 7.5% of subcontract $ 107,641.94 Amount outstanding $ 235,569.07 Should you are agreeable, please put in writing to accept this final account. We also inform you that the client had short changed us by paying us about 81 nos. less from our claims for numbers of rock bolts. Even though you had provided us with the signed copies of bored logs, our submission to the Quantity Surveyor for these signed copies are too late for consideration for our final accounts. Your missing copies of bored logs amount to (81-33-21) equal 27 nos. of bored logs. 9 [23] Learned counsel for the plaintiff then contended that the foregoing should be read together with paragraph c) of the Letter of 28.1.2016 which states as follows: “c) Because of these shoddy works, with accompanying photos, the Consulting Engineer had changed the foundation system for parts of Block B4 & B5, the rock bolts installed by you. In our final accounts 71 nos. of rock bolts for these two blocks were not paid. We lose RM 103,802.00 (rock bolts only) including our profits as a result of your incompetence. These rock bolts were not certified for payment by both the Consulting Engineer and the Quantity Surveyor. (Appendix 5).” [24] Although the number of rock bolts differ (71 in the Letter of 28.1.2016 and 81 in the Undated Letter), this is said to have been explained by the plaintiff’s witness Tiam Ah Chiew in his witness statement and in his answers to questions Q58 and Q59 which are set out below: “Q58: Please refer to pages 169 and 170 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Jilid 2). Please explain this document to the Court. A58: This Taccon Sdn Bhd’s letter to Universal Drillers Sdn Bhd dated 28.1.2016 which states in Paragraph b) that Universal had constructed a total of 1787 of the project total of 2433. Taccon was certified for payment by THL Consultants for a number of 2362 comprising of 907 10 numbers of 150mm diameter rock bolts and 1455 numbers of 200mm rockbolts. Taccon Sdn Bhd is claiming for the difference of 71 numbers in rock bolts (2433-2362=71). Q59: Why then did you state 81 rock bolts in Paragraph 10.2 of the Statement of Claim? A59: There were 71 numbers of rock bolts that were not paid and there from Block B4 and B5. The difference of 10 is because some good rock bolts within a pile group were also rejected together. For example if a rock bolt is rejected within a pile group of four blocks the whole group will be rejected.” [25] It was submitted that ultimately it is merely a matter of classification and the total number of rock bolts remain the same. Pembesaran Tapak dan Kerja-Kerja Tambahan Asas – RM225,895.36 [26] The explanation for this claim is said to have been provided by the first witness for the plaintiff. His testimony was as follows: “34Q: Now moving on, there was a question also asked on you on paragraph 10.3 of your statement of claim, and again you say that you cannot show the deduction for that figure 225,895.36, can you please explain your answer to that? 11 Subsequent to the site meeting organized by the main contractor and the client, I was there personally on site to witness the part of the work that was rejected by Jurutera Perunding YLT. I was there to assess to damage and to come out with the proposal to either remedy or to make good. So we came out with the proposal to remedy but the Respondent who had promised to turn up to do the remedy work was not there. Then the main contractor because of the time imposed on them, they were forced to come out with, to redo the foundation using further proposal by me. So the whole figure of 225,895 consists of new pile, that means new pilling system including the mobilization, the excavation and the pile gate, that works out to be 225,895.36.” [27] The plaintiff then contends that this testimony should be considered with paragraph d) of the Letter of 28.1.2016 which states as follows: “d) The change in foundation system by the Consulting Engineer will include piling systems and footing designs. The enlargement of pilecaps and new piling system will to replace these 71 nos. of rock bolts with 80 nos. 200 x 200 mm reinforced concrete piles using a hanging leader to drive these piles. A total of 20 pile groups including 17 groups in Block B5 and 3 groups in Block B4. (Appendix 12 6) Each pile group has 4 nos. of piles. We estimate that the total costs of the changes in foundation design are $225, 895.36 (Appendix 7).” [28] Learned counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the amount given was only an “estimate”. Ganti Rugi Yang Di-Tentukan – RM126,000.00 [29] This is the plaintiff’s claim for liquidated and ascertained damages that it claims it had to pay. The claim is made in paragraph 9.4 of the Statement of Claim. As to this claim the evidence tendered through the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness Tiam Ah Chew is as follows: “Q66: Mr Tiam, Please explain Paragraph 10.4 of the of Claim. A66: This is Taccon’s claim for liquidated and ascertain damages for the delay caused by the additional works carried out by the main contractor on the foundations to replace the rejected rock bolts. Q67: Please tell the Court how the sum of RM126,000.00 was derived? A67: Your honour, based on my experience and expertise in construction or foundation, I estimate forty two (42) days will be required to carry out the relevant remedial works. My contract with ACE Equity Sdn Bhd states 13 that there was a liquidated ascertained clause of RM3,000.00 per day for delays. The additional work caused delay for an estimate delays.” [30] Learned counsel for the plaintiff then referred to paragraph 1 e) of the Letter of 28.1.2016 which states as follows: “e) With the remedial works as well as new foundation system, the main contractor had an enlarged scope of works and delays were caused by these changes. We were penalized a total of RM126,000.00 by the main contractor for the delays. These delays were caused by the changes and not by our late delivery which we delivered the whole foundation project by 2 September 2013.” [31] Learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, very candidly conceded that there is no evidence of any actual payment by the plaintiff of this sum to ACE. However, learned counsel maintained that because the Letter of 28.1.2016 was not challenged, it is an admission by the Respondent that the plaintiff was penalized as alleged. Defendant’s counterclaim [32] The defendant’s counterclaim was in respect of 7 progressive payments totalling RM1,621,382.22 in respect of which only a total sum of RM1,049,402.80 was paid leaving an unpaid balance of RM571,979.42. 14 The particulars are set out below: “a. Progressive claim 1 dated 19.4.2013 RM217,323.88 b. Progressive claim 2 dated 22.5.2013 RM392,648.69 c. Progressive claim 3 dated 24.6.2013 RM405,803.30 d. Progressive claim 4 dated 5.7.2013 RM51,083.39 e. Progressive claim 5 dated 7.8.2013 RM193,618.79 f. Progressive claim 6 dated 26.8.2013 RM52,152.67 g. Progressive claim 7 dated 23.12.2013 RM308,751.50 Total RM1,621,382.22” “ No. Date Item Amount 14.1 3.6.2013 Payment RM40,000.00 14.2 5.7.2013 Payment RM162,975.80 14.3 5.7.2013 Debit Note No. RM37,024.20 14.4 2.8.2013 Payment RM25,000.00 14.5 26.8.2013 Payment RM330,000.00 14.6 28.10.2013 Payment RM130,000.00 14.7 28.1.2014 Payment RM160,000.00 14.8 28.1.2014 Debit Note RM89,402.80 14.9 2.7.2014 Payment RM40,000.00 14.10 10.9.2014 Payment RM35,000.00 Total RM1,049,402.80 ” 15 [33] In addition, the 7 progressive claims were signed off by the plaintiff, ACE, Meridian and the defendant. [34] The plaintiff’s line of contention against the defendant’s counterclaim is that these progressive claims are only evidence of work done but not evidence of the quality of the work done. The plaintiff contends that there is sufficient evidence of the fact that the quality of the work done by the defendant was not acceptable. Defendant’s contentions [35] The defendant’s case is fundamentally premised on the contention that there is simply no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claims. It was submitted that having regard to the evidence led, the learned Sessions Court Judge was perfectly correct to have concluded as she did. [36] In relation to the 4 heads of claim by the plaintiff, there are only the 4 documents submitted on. [37] Learned counsel for the defendant referred to the Undated Letter and pointed out that it was about securing a discount from the defendant. Nothing in the letter actually points to defective rock bolts or any pull out test which is said to have occurred on 2.5.2014. [38] However, while it was conceded that YLT’s letter to ACE of 2.5.2014 did point to unsatisfactory work, in was clearly stated in that letter that this was due to an issue of design. However, the design that 16 the defendant had to work with was that of the plaintiff. YLT’s letter also did not point to the unsatisfactory work being that of the defendant. The unsatisfactory work could have been those of the other contractors. This is because there were 3 rock bolt contractors and the defendant was only one of them. There was also no specific area that was referred to such that it could be concluded that the rock bolts were those constructed by the defendant. [39] Counsel for the defendant submitted that no one from YLT was called by the plaintiff to testify. Indeed, the plaintiff should have done so but instead it was the defendant who subpoenaed the attendance of a witness from YLT. However, the subpoenaed witness did not attend the trial. [40] It was also submitted on behalf of the defendant that the letter from ACE to the plaintiff of 25.9.2013 and the letter from YLT to ACE dated 21.2.2014 suffered from the same problems. The rock bolt contractor was not identified and the location of the unsatisfactory rock bolts was also not identified. [41] To the contrary it was maintained on behalf of the defendant that the rock bolts constructed by the defendant were with grouting material that had passed what is known as a cube test. This test determines the suitability of the grouting or cement used. The cube test was commissioned by the defendant and it was carried out by a company known as Associated Testing Lab Sdn Bhd. The test results were in evidence and they are found in volume 18 of the record of appeal at pp 3466 to 3531. 17 [42] Referring to the notes of proceedings and the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witness, it was submitted for the defendant that there was no evidence of any pull out test conducted or that an amount of RM110,000.00 was either paid by the plaintiff or deducted from monies due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s witness conceded this. The following is that part of the notes of proceedings referred to by learned counsel for the defendant: “76Q: Can you show the Court where is it that they charged you? The specific charges were not there. I have no documents for RM110,000.00 as well. Ya correct. But the fact that the tests were carried out, 3 tests. 77Q: So can I refer you to Q&A 51, we are still on the pull out test, sorry. So here it says that you are claiming RM110,000.00 and then you have said that it was, there is no documents to show that it was deducted. Now, if you look at Question 68, let me assist you la, if you look at Question 68 of your witness statement, here you are saying that there is a final account between Taccon and Ace Equity. Yes. And is at page 443 to 459, so my question to you is even though you don’t have documents to show never mind, in your final account is the RM110,000.00 inside there or not? 18 No. Is not even inside there, ok, alright. 78Q: So does that mean that it was not deducted at all? It was deducted, there were consequential damages... No no no no, you say is not there and there is no documents, so does it mean that is not deducted, I am talking about mathematics here, that RM110,000.00. No.” [43] Insofar as the RM225,895.36 site expansion and rectification works claimed, there is no evidence at all that any such sum was incurred or even how it was incurred. [44] Similarly, the claim for RM126,000.00 being liquidated and ascertained damages suffers from the same problem. There was no evidence of any such payment made by the plaintiff or deducted from monies due to it. The plaintiff’s appeal [45] It is necessary to state at the outset that the plaintiff’s appeal in this case is predicated on findings of fact by the learned Sessions Court Judge. 19 [46] The learned Sessions Court Judge had examined the evidence with particularity and ultimately found that the plaintiff had not proven its claims against the defendant. [47] As can be seen from the 4 letters said to be upon which the plaintiff’s claims are mounted, even they do not bear out the plaintiff’s case. The argument that they are deemed admitted merely because the defendant did not refute them before the case is quite untenable. I do not think that is a valid proposition of law. No authority was provided to support this proposition by learned counsel for the plaintiff. [48] There was no evidence of any pull out test being conducted or that the plaintiff had to bear or had to pay RM110,000.00 in respect of any pull out test. The plaintiff’s own witness conceded that there is no evidence of any such payment. [49] In regard to the RM103,802.00 claimed for 81 rock bolts, there are inconsistencies in the number of rock bolts said to be unsatisfactorily constructed. In the Letter of 28.1.2016 the number of rock bolts are stated to be 71. In the Undated Letter it is said to be 81. As both the letters are from the plaintiff, it would not be unreasonable to expect consistency. Furthermore the attempt to explain away the difference as being merely a matter of classification by the plaintiff’s witness Tiam Ah Chew does not persuade. There is also no indication as to which of the contractors involved had constructed the unsatisfactory rock bolts. No evidence was led to connect the rock bolts said to be unsatisfactory with the defendant. In addition no witness from either YLT or ACE was called to testify. 20 [50] The learned Sessions Court Judge dealt with this claim for 81 rock bolts in paragraphs 39 and 40 of in her grounds of judgment in the following terms: “39. Mahkamah ini juga mendapati tiada terma-terma yang menyatakan bahawa bayaran hanya boleh dibuat setelah grout tersebut kering dan kerja-kerja Defendan telah diterima dan diluluskan oleh YTL Construction Sdn Bhd. Pada Mahkamah, jikapun kemudiannya Plaintif mendapati kerja-kerja Defendan adalah defektif, Plaintif mempunyai hak untuk menuntut kembali bayaran yang telah dibayar daripada Defendan. Malahan Mahkamah juga mendapati SP1 tidak konsisten di dalam keterangannya berkenaan dengan penolakan 81 rockbolt tersebut yang didakwa telah ditolak oleh kontraktor utama. Ini jelas semasa SP1 disoalbalas oleh Peguam Defendan yang bijaksana berkenaan penolakan 81 rockbolts sebagaimana surat Plaintif kepada Defendan (mukasurat 2,3,4 dan 5 di Ikatan Dokumen B14). Di dalam surat tersebut dinyatakan 81 rockbolts tidak dapat dipertimbangkan untuk dimasukkan ke dalam final account untuk dihantar kepada Quantity Surveyor berikutan Defendan telah lewat memberikannya kepada Plaintif untuk pertimbangan final account.

Namun semasa disoal lagi oleh Peguam Defendan, SP1 kemudiannya menyatakan 81 rockbolts itu diterima pula oleh kontraktor utama setelah dirayu oleh SP1. Justeru, 21 Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan oleh SP1 adalah tidak konsisten berkenaan dengan penolakan rockbolts tersebut oleh kontraktor utama. Tambahan pula keterangan dari SP4, Encik Teng Eng Ho yang merupakan Pengarah kepada Ace Equity, mengesahkan telah membayar sepenuhnya harga projek tersebut kepada Plaintif.” [51] As for the sum of RM225,895.36 being allegedly for site expansion and additional works, there is again simply no evidence that the plaintiff suffered this loss. In fact, this sum is actually referred to as an “estimate” in the Letter of 28.1.2016 in paragraph d). The learned Sessions Court Judge provided her conclusion on this claim in paragraph 47 of her grounds of judgment in the following terms: “47. Mahkamah juga mendapati Plaintif juga telah gagal untuk membuktikan kerugian yang dialami bagi pembesaran tapak ekoran kerja-kerja Defendan yang tidak bermutu yang berjumlah RM225,895.36 di mana jumlah itu adalah untuk new piling system termasuk mobilization, excavation dan pile gate. Ini berikutan tiada bukti dokumentar menunjukkan bahawa sejumlah RM225,895.36 telah ditolak oleh kontraktor utama daripada Plaintif. Malahan keterangan oleh SP4 juga tidak menyokong tuntutan Plaintif ini apabila SP4 sendiri tidak mengingati samada ada tolakan dibuat ataupun tidak terhadap Plaintif.” 22 [52] Similarly, the sum of RM126,000.00 claimed being for payment of liquidated and ascertained damages for late delivery is bereft of evidence. This claim was dealt with in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the learned Sessions Court’s grounds of judgment in the following terms: “41. Malahan SP4 juga tidak dapat mengesahkan samada telah menuntut Late Delivery Damages (LAD) berjumlah RM3000 sehari daripada Plaintif. Plaintif juga gagal untuk mengemukakan keterangan dokumentar bagi mengesahkan bahawa LAD tersebut telah dibayar kepada kontraktor utama. Tambahan pula tiada dicatatkan di dalam akaun akhir di antara Plaintif dan kontraktor utama yang menunjukkan bahawa kontraktor utama telah mengenakan tuntutan LAD terhadap Plaintif. Akaun akhir di antara Plaintif dan kontraktor utama adalah sebagaimana di mukasurat 445-451 Ikatan Dokumen B4. Untuk menjadi lebih jelas dikemukakan nota keterangan semasa SP4 disoalbalas oleh Peguam Defendan dan tiada penjelasan semula oleh Peguam Plaintif berkenaan perkara ini kepada SP4. 26Q: Did you charge Taccon LAD RM3000? I cant remember, ultimately we signed off settlement agreement with them already, done. Final account done. 23 Not settlement agreement, final account? Final account la, done, everything done already, with that even we paid them 100%. Paid them 100%? Confirm. (muka surat 138 nota keterangan)

Justeru itu adalah dapatan Mahkamah ini, Plaintif gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa kontraktor utama telah mengenakan tuntutan LAD terhadap Plaintif untuk jumlah RM126,000.00 dan justeru itu tidak menjustifikasikan untuk Plaintif menuntutnya ke atas Defendan pula. [53] As for the defendant’s counterclaim for the unpaid amount due under the 7 progressive payment claims, it is significant that the claim is refuted only on the basis that the quality of the work is not proven. However, all the claims were signed off by the plaintiff itself including ACE and YLT. There is really no basis to refuse this claim. The alleged unsatisfactory work of the defendant was never proven. [54] It is settled law that a court in an appellate role would be slow to interfere with findings of fact. In this case there is no basis to interfere with the learned Sessions Court Judge’s findings of fact. It cannot be said that the Sessions Court was plainly wrong or that there was any flaw in the evaluation of the evidence led. 24 [55] For the reasons given above, the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00. Dated this 28th day of May 2018. sgd (YA TUAN DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE) Judicial Commissioner High Court Civil NCVC2 Kuala Lumpur 25

Tetuan Chan & Associates,the learned counsels for the appellant at: Tetuan Chan & Associates No. 1, Tingkat 1, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 30000 Ipoh, Perak.

Tetuan Mustafa Ling & Co., the learned counsels for the respondent at: Tetuan Mustafa Ling & Co. Suite B311 (Lift Lobby 10 & 11) 3rd Floor, Block B, Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 1, No. 9, Jalan 16/11, Off Jalan Damansara 46350 Petaling Jaya, Selangor 26

Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad v Fiskal Fantasi Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 678.

Cheng Keng Hong v The Federation of Malaya [1966] 2 MLJ 33.

UMBC Insurans Berhad v TNB Risk Management Sdn Bhd [2010] 1

S.T.U. v. The Comptroller of Income Tax (1962) 28 MLJ 220.

Industrial & Agricultural Distribution Sdn Bhd v Golden Sands Construction Sdn Bhd [1933] 3 MLJ 433.

Guthrie Sdn Bhd v Trans-Malaysian Leasing Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ

33.

Chan Yoke Lain (administrator of the estate of Chong Yoke Fah, deceased) v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Sdn Bhd [1999] 1 MLJ

303.

Subry bin Hamid v Husaini bin Tan Sri Ikhwan [2006] 6 MLJ 229.

Mohamed Kasdi v. PP [1969] 1 MLJ 135.

Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v. Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229.

Sections 91 and 92 Evidence Act 1950.

Section 74 Contracts Act 1950.

Sections 101 of the Evidence Act.

Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.