Trinity Advance Sdn Bhd v Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-690-12/2023)

The core dispute between the parties centers on the legality of the Defendant's termination of their debt collection services agreement. The Plaintiff contends that the termination was wrongful and premature, while the Defendant maintains it was a valid response to a material breach of contract.

The agreement for the provision of debt collection services was a contract signed between the parties on 18.10.2021. Under this agreement, the Plaintiff served as a debt collection agency tasked with recovering outstanding sewerage services debts.

The agreement defined two core services that the Plaintiff was contractually obligated to provide under Clause 2.1 which are directly collecting outstanding payments from the Defendant's debtors and instruct solicitors to issue legal demand letters to debtors in a specific format defined in Appendix E.

Under Clause 2.5.1 of the agreement, the Defendant assigned specific tasks to the Plaintiff via Job Identification (Job ID) documents. These Job IDs contained special instructions that dictated how the services were to be performed and proven. The Plaintiff was required to take photographs of every premises where a letter of demand (LoD) was issued to prove that a staff member had actually visited the site. The Plaintiff had to obtain a signed acknowledgment of LoDs from the debtors or provide their contact information as proof of delivery. The Plaintiff was required to ensure the correct arrears (overdue amounts) were stated in each LoD, using a Microsoft Access database provided by the Defendant.

Clause 6.1(ii) of the agreement requires the Plaintiff to pay a RM100,000.00 security deposit to ensure the due performance of its contractual obligations. Appendix D of the agreement outlines the penalties for specific errors, such as a charge of five times the LoD rate (amounting to RM35.00 per account) for wrongly preparing LoD reports.

The agreement provided specific mechanisms for termination, which are at the heart of this legal dispute. Clause 10.1 allows the Defendant to terminate the agreement at any time by giving 14 days' written notice without assigning any reason.

Clause 10.2(a) entitles the Defendant to terminate the agreement within 14 days' written notice if the Plaintiff committed a material breach (whether expressed or implied).

There is a 14-day rectification period for non-material breaches under Clause 10.2(d) for non-material breached (which the Plaintiff argued apply to their errors whereas the Defendant argued they terminated under Clause 10.2(a) instead).

Upon receiving a notice of termination, Clauses 10.4 to 10.6 of the agreement required the Plaintiff to immediately cease all visits and collections. The Plaintiff was also obligated to physically return all the Defendant's property, including receipt books, ID badges, and letters of authority.

The conflict arose from specific assignments given to the Plaintiff via five Job IDs (F09, F08, F08 CTOS, F10, and F10 CTOS) issued between August and September 2022. These Job IDs contained special instructions requiring the Plaintiff to provide proof of service, which included taking photographs of every premises visited and obtaining signed acknowledgments for each LoD issued.

Between October and December 2022, the Plaintiff submitted CDs purportedly containing proof of these services (First Submissions). Upon review in March 2023, the Defendant discovered that the documents were incorrect; the Plaintiff had recycled LoDs and photographs from debt collection assignments dating back to 2020 and 2021, rather than the 2022 assignments actually assigned. The Defendant sent emails dated 22.3.2023 and 23.3.2023, requiring the Plaintiff to rectify these wrong files by 24.3.2023, but the Plaintiff had failed to do respond or correct the data by the deadline.

Consequently, the Defendant issued the Notice of Termination on 28.3.2023 citing a material breach of the agreement. Post-termination, the Plaintiff's director (PW1) admitted in a phone call and subsequent letters that its staff had "copied the wrong folder" or used corrupted data. The Plaintiff attempted another one (Second Submission) via WeTransfer to rectify the errors, but the Defendant found that this Second Submission also contained significant defects regarding formatting and financial accuracy.

The evidence presented during the trial, through witness testimony and documentary findings show that the Plaintiff was contractually required to provide 23,055 photographs - one for each account. A substantial portion of these were missing or falsified using old photos; for example-5,488 photographs submitted for Job ID F08 were actually from a 2021 assignment.

The Plaintiff's own witness admitted during cross-examination that in a sample of 200LoDs from the First Submission, only four LoDs were actually related to the assigned 2022 Job IDs.

Evidence shows the Plaintiff failed to use the correct arrears amounts from the Microsoft Access database provided by the Plaintiff. Instead, they demanded the total amount due as per the Defendant's bills. In one instance, an LoD demanded RM320.00 from a debtor (Viknesvaran) when the correct arrears amount was RM280.00. The Plaintiff's counsel eventually conceded during the trial that none of the LoDs in the Second Submission were correct compared to the Defendant's data.

The LoDs in the Second Submission failed to comply with the mandatory format in Appendix E. Specifically, the LoDs lacked sequential paragraph numbering, the names and addresses were not placed in boxes, and the headers were not centered.

Adduced at trial was the Plaintiff's final letter of appeal wherein it admitted that the "wrongful submission report ... goes against the core of our contract." Which the Defendant used as evidence that the breach was material and affected the substratum of the agreement.

This Court heard explanation from the Plaintiff that the submission of the recycled photographs and incorrect data primarily were a series of unintentional clerical and technical errors rather than a deliberate attempt to falsify the records. The Plaintiff's manager (who was not called as witness) and PW1 had apologized for what they termed an 'unintentional mistake' by data entry staff. They claimed that the staff accidentally copied the wrong folder or attached soft copies of demand letters from previous years (2020 and 2021) instead of the 2022 assignment.

During the re-examination of PW2 (the partner at Messrs. Ravi Shangar & Associates and the majority shareholder of the Plaintiff), he testified that the submitted CDs were corrupted or that the wrong data was uploaded into the system during the submissions process. Evidence reveals that at the meeting on 30.5.2023, PW2 introduced a new explanation, stating that the defects in the data arose due to the Plaintiff's migration to a new information technology (IT) system. The Defendant noted this explanation was contradictory to the earlier "wrong folder" excuse given by the manager earlier on 30.3.2023.

To explain the missing or old reused photographs, PW2 claimed that field staff often faced security concerns at apartment complexes and commercial premises. He stated that security guards or management offices frequently prevented staff from taking photographs of the premises, making it difficult to provide current proof or visitation for every account.

The Plaintiff has also stated in their final appeal that some photographs were missing because they had been deleted by previous data entry staff, leaving them with only a small fraction (approximately 2,500 out of 23,055) of the required images. Despite all these justifications the Plaintiff eventually admitted in their written report to the Defendant that the submissions went against the core of their contract though they maintained it was without malicious intent.

This Court studied the documentary evidence, assessed the witness testimony, and analyzed the Plaintiff's work concerning Job IDs F09, F08, F08 CTOS, F10 and F10 CTOS, This Court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, the evidence establishes that the work was in breach of the agreement in the following specific ways: Defects in the First Submission

(a)The initial proof of work submitted to the Defendant via CDs was found to be almost entirely comprised of recycled data from previous years. For all five Job IDs, the Plaintiff submitted LoDs that were issued for debt collection files assigned in 2020 and 2021, rather the 2022 assignments.

(b)Out of a sample of 200 LoDs produced before this Court, PW1 conceded that only four LoDs were actually related to the assigned Job IDs. DW1 confirmed that 177 out of these 200 LoDs were dated 2021.

The Plaintiff was contractually required to provide a photograph of every account issued an LoD as proof of visitation. Evidence showed that the Plaintiff submitted thousands of photographs that had been previously used for 2020/2021 assignments. Defects in the Second Submission

After the termination by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had attempted to rectify all the errors via a Second Submission which was also found to be rife with breaches. The Plaintiff failed to demand the correct arrears/overdue amounts as provided in the Microsoft Access database. Instead, the Plaintiff demanded total amount due which included figures that had not yet become due.

(e)During trial, the Plaintiff's own counsel conceded that none of the LoDs in the Second Submission were correct compared to the figures in the assigned data.

The LoDs further failed to comply with the mandatory templates in Appendix E. The specific defects included:

Paragraphs were not numbered sequentially

(ii) Debtor details were not placed in boxes

(iii) Headers and tables were not centered

Blank CTOS charges for Job IDs F08 CTOS, and F10 CTOS wherein the Plaintiff had failed to state the required charges for removing a debtor's name from CTOS, leaving those fields blank.

(h)No photographs were provided in the Second Submission to prove that the field staff had actually visited the 23,055 premises.

This Court finds that the formatting breaches in the LoDs as above significantly hindered the Defendant's ability to verify if the services it paid for were actually performed by the Plaintiff. Without LoDs that adhered to the mandatory formats set out in Appendix E and contained accurate arrears data, the Defendant could not ascertain whether these documents had been properly issued or delivered to the debtors. These persistent defects, along with the submission of recycled data from previous years, raised serious concerns regarding the Plaintiff's integrity and reliability as a service provider.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff's representative PW2 conceded during his cross-examination that if the LoDs were not issued or were inaccurate, it would prejudice the Defendant's actions to recover moneys/amount owing from its debtors. Because the Plaintiff failed to provide valid proof of issuance according to the Job IDs, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to issue a credit note for RM52,733.94 to refund payments for billing services that were never proven to be rendered. Failure to provide acknowledgments

The Plaintiff was contractually obligated to provide acknowledged LoDs which were to contain the debtor's signatures with their contact details or NRIC numbers. PW1 conceded in her cross-examination that there was no evidence or confirmation that the LoDs were actually delivered to or received by the account holders. [23] The 'wrong folder' explanation was primarily provided by Anil Kumar Gopal for the Plaintiff during a telephone call on 30.3.2023 but the substance of this explanation is also recorded in documentary evidence authored by the Plaintiff. In the Plaintiff's appeal letter of 31.3.2023 (p193 of Bundle B1), the Plaintiff explicitly apologized for an unintentional mistake by data entry staff who attached the soft copy of the letter of demand for the previous year. [24] In its further appeal letter of 2.4.2023, the Plaintiff again attributed the discrepancies to an "unintentional error by our data entry staff when uploading the data into the CD". [25] During re-examination, PW2 admitted that the breach occurred because they submitted the wrong CD or the staff uploaded the wrong data inside the CD. This Court finds that PW2 was contradictory in his later explanation that it was due to the Plaintiff's IT migration. [26] This Court finds that while the specific phrase 'wrong folder' originated from an oral conversation, the fact that the Plaintiff submitted data from the wrong year was a matter of record in its own letters of appeal to the Defendant, and Anil Kumar Gopal's role as the Plaintiff's primary manager at the material time corroborates DW1's account that he was the one who had provided the initial explanation. Based on the evidence, it is on a balance of probabilities, such explanation was proffered to the Defendant at the material time. The Afterthought [27] There is evidence to shows the Plaintiff's IT migration explanation was an afterthought as the Plaintiff provided the shifted justifications following the termination of the agreement. As borne by the evidence iterated above, the initial managerial admission was that it was error of 'wrong folder' being applied to the mistaken LoDs - this was the immediate explanation on 30.3.2023 following the termination. [28] In formal written correspondences sent shortly after the termination on 31.3.2023, the Plaintiff explicitly apologized for an unintentional mistake by data entry staff who attached the sofit copy of the letter of demand for the previous year. [29] A further appeal letter of 2.4.2023 continued to attribute the discrepancies to an unintentional error during the CD uploading process, once again failing to mention any technical migration or IT system failures. [30] The IT migration explanation only emerged two months later, on 30.5.2023, during a meeting between the Defendant's personnel and PW2. [31] This Court concludes that the IT migration explanation is an afterthought because it lacks consistency with the Plaintiff's own contemporaneous documentary admission and the initial operational explanation provided by the Plaintiff's Arul Kumar Gopal. This shifting of positions significantly impairs the credibility of the Plaintiff's case, as it appears to be a later attempt to diminish the gravity of submitting recycled data from 2020 and 2021. Consequently, this Court finds the Plaintiff failed to provide a cogent and consistent narrative to rebut the fact that they fundamentally breached the core of the contract. The Penalty [32] The Defendant provided a detailed basis and calculation for its claim of RM806,925.00, linking it directly to the terms of the debt collection agreement and the specific volume of the Plaintiff's breaches. The sum was calculated using a specific formula based on the number of defective accounts and contractual penalty rates:

The total defective account is 23,055 (total number across the Job IDs F08,F08 CTOS,F09,F10,F10 CTOS)

The standard rate for issuing a LoD was RM7.00 per account as per Appendix A

Under Appendix D, item d(ii) of the agreement, the Defendant was entitled to charge a penalty of five times the LoD rate (amounting to RM35,00 per account) if the Plaintiff "wrongly prepares the LoD report" [33] Thus, the computation is 23,055 accounts multiply RM35.00 which amounts to RM806,925.00. [34] This amount was presented to the Plaintiff before this legal suit commenced. It was first presented vide slideshow on 30.5.2023 by DW1 in 'Key Findings on LoDs & Photos Submitted by Trinity Advance Sdn Bhd'. DW1 testified in detail regarding how the number of accounts and the penalty rate were derived from the assigned data and the agreement. PW2 confirmed such in his cross-examination. There was also a formal letter dated 7.6.2023 issued by the Defendant that stated it would consider revoking the termination if the Plaintiff paid the said calculated sum of RM806,925.00. Additionally, this Court accepts the evidence that while the said letter referred to the sum as a 'penalty', it was actually the reinstatement cost the Plaintiff would have owed under the agreement's penalty clauses had the agreement not been terminated. This Court agrees that the calculation was strictly guided by the agreement to rectify the 23,055 accounts for which the Plaintiff had failed to provide the proof of service. [35] It is the considered view of this Court to its utmost satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that the breaches were indeed material. Thus, the termination opted by the Defendant is justified and valid as per the agreement - Clause 10.2(a). Under this provision, the Defendant is contractually entitled to terminate the agreement by providing 14 days' written notice in the event the Plaintiff commits a material breach, whether expressed or implied. See Dalkia Utilities Services plc v Celtech International Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 203 (Jan); Abdul Razak Bin Datuk Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [1999] 2 MLJ 500; Goh Hui Sun v Tiew Cheng Haw [2024] MLJU 2524. [36] Clause 10.2 of the agreement operates 'Notwithstanding Clause 10.1' which is a separate provision allowing the Defendant to terminate at any time without assigning any reason. Unlike Clause 10.2(d) of the agreement which applies to non-material breaches and provides a 14-day window for the Plaintiff to fix the errors, Clause 10.2(a) does not require the Defendant to provide time for rectification once a material breach has occurred. [37] Upon termination under Clause 2(a), other provisions (Clauses 10.3 and 10.4) take effect, requiring the Plaintiff to immediately cease work and return all the Defendant's property, such as ID badges and letters of authority. This Court rules that the Defendant has lawfully issued the termination on 28.3.2023 under Clause 10.2(a) of the agreement to end the contract, grounded on the breaches found above which are material and in the Plaintiff's own description 'goes to the core of the contract'. See Puncak Alam Housing Sdn Bhd v Menta Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] 1 LNS 148; W J Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 All ER 127; LGB Engineering Sdn Bhd & Ors v Rayston Resources Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 MLJ 649; Davanam Constructions Sdn Bhd v THP Enstek Development Sdn Bhd (formerly known as THNSTC Sdn Bhd) [2024] MLJU 1280. Non-calling of the Plaintiff's 'manager' [38] The manager or supervisor of the Plaintiff was one of the two primary individuals responsible for managing the Plaintiff's day-to-day operations and oversaw management affairs when the Plaintiff's director (PW1) was on maternity leave. He was identified as Anil Kumar Gopal. He was not called as a witness. His role seemed significance for several reasons. One was because he was the individual who communicated directly with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff leading up to and immediately following the termination. See Harmony Shipping Co SA v Davis and others [1979] 3 All ER 177; Jaafar Bin Shaari & Anor v Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 3 MLJ 693; Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd and another appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177; Guthrie Sdn Bhd v Trans-Malaysian Leasing Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 33. [39] As the primary point of contact for the Plaintiff, he had initiated a telephone call on 30.3.2023 with DW1 to inquire about the termination. During this conversation, he reportedly admitted that the submission of incorrect, recycled data from previous years happened because the staff had copied the wrong folder. He was also the individual who had signed and returned the duplicate Notice of Termination dated 31.3.2023 acknowledging its receipt. [40] During the trial, PW2 testified that the said manager had eventually been dismissed from the Plaintiff. Because of his direct involvement and personal knowledge of the wrong folder error, the Defendant argued that he was a material witness, and so that the failure to call him to testify should result in an adverse inference being drawn against the Plaintiff's case. [41] This Court noted the evidence of PW1 who testified that Anil Kumar Gopal's official job title was 'Supervisor'. When specifically asked if he was the manager, she stated he was only a supervisor for the Plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 consistently referred to him as the manager. PW2's in his testimony however, agreed with the suggestion that Anil Kumar Gopal was the manager of the Plaintiff at the material time. [42] Regardless of his title, this Court finds that evidence shows he performed substantial managerial duties. Even PW1 admitted that she handled the management of the Plaintiff together with him. When PW1 was on maternity leave from April to July 2023, she confirmed that Anil Kumar Gopal was the sole person managing the Plaintiff's affairs (alongside some involvement from PW2). He was the individual who communicated directly with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. He initiated the telephone call with the Defendant to inquire about the termination and was the person who signed the duplicate Notice of Termination to acknowledge receipt on 31.3.2023. The Defendant argued that Anil Kumar Gopal was the person with the most knowledge regarding the Plaintiff's daily operations and the specific 'wrong folder' errors that led to the termination. [43] It is this Court's considered opinion that the failure to call Anil Kumar Gopal was a significant, and arguably fatal, weaknesses in the Plaintiff's attempt to prove its claim of wrongful termination or to rebut the Defendant's justification for termination. This conclusion is based on the fact that he was the individual with the most direct, personal knowledge of the operational failures that led to the dispute. Not only did he have operational control and was the primary point of contact for the Plaintiff with the Defendant but without his testimony, the Plaintiff had no first-hand witness to rebut the damaging admission of operational negligence that resulted from the application of the 'wrong folder' in carrying out the Plaintiff's contractual duties. [44] The Plaintiff's final letter of appeal specifically stated that it requested a meeting with Anil Kumar Gopal would be able to attend and explain the errors. His subsequent dismissal by the Plaintiff further complicated their failure to produce him to provide that promised explanation whether to the Defendant before the filing of this legal suit or during the trial of this case. [45] PW1 and PW2 made significant admissions that undermined its claim of an unlawful termination, such as conceding that the failure to provide proof of visitations via photographs constituted a material breach of the agreement. See Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad v Sail Bin Yalang [2009] MLJU 928; Haron v Macaulay [1969]1 MLJ 169; M South Marketing Sdn Bhd v All Ways Builder Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4162. The Plaintiff was reminded that the burden of proof rests on it to show that the Defendant's termination was illegal. The evidence shows that without him, the Plaintiff could not substantiate its version of the 'wrong folder' error as an excusable clerical mistake. His absence allowed the Defendant to successfully show that the Plaintiff had no credible evidence to rebut the fact that they had fundamentally breached the core of their agreement by submitting falsified or recycled data. See Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan (as executor to SL Alameloo Achi alias Sona Lena Alamelo Acho, deceased) & Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 697. Credibility of Witnesses [46] Through the Defendant's arguments, this Court is invited to make a finding that the testimonies of the Plaintiff's witnesses were not credible, contradictory and inconsistent with documentary evidence. It was observed that PW2 has a complex relationship between his role as a practicing lawyer and his position as the majority shareholder of the Plaintiff. There are significant contradictions in his testimony and a blurring of lines between the Plaintiff's operations and his legal firm. [47] PW2, who is a practicing advocate and solicitor at his own firm, was a director of the Plaintiff at the material time. He still remains the largest shareholder, holding 100,000 shares compare to 75,000 shares held by the other two shareholders. PW2 admitted as the person who singlehandedly owns more shares than the other two, he had a say in determining which law firm received work from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff as seen, appointed PW2's own law firm to handle the issuance of the LoDs. While PW2 claimed that the Plaintiff and his law firm are "two different things", he admitted to being involved in the Plaintiff's management, specifically the appointment of staff and dispatch. He also admitted that his law firm's staff would receive data from the Plaintiff via email to generate the thousands LoDs required by the agreement. [48] Despite being a "seasoned lawyer", PW2 was evasive during crossexamination about his majority shareholding in January 2024. Claiming he has not seen records from the Companies Commission Malaysia (CCM) and had only been told he held 30%. He eventually this was a mistake when pressed. [49] It was also observed that PW2 testified that he personally checked "every single letter of demand" (thousands of letters) to ensure accuracy. However, it was established that the First Submission contained recycled data from 2020/2021 and the Second Submission contained incorrect arrears data and formatting breaches. [50] PW2 introduced a narrative during a May 2023 meeting that the defects arose from a migration to a new IT system. This was contradictory to the earlier explanation provided by the Plaintiff who stated the error was simply because staff had copied the wrong folder. [51] Despite suing for RM5,000,000.00, PW2 eventually conceded during cross-examination that failing to provide photographs as proof of visitation constituted a material breach of the agreement. He also admitted that the wrongful submission "goes against the core of our contract" based on the appeal letter that he apparently had checked before issuance. [52] PW2 admitted that there is nothing in black and white or any documentary evidence before this Court to prove the Plaintiff's claim for the RM5,000,000.00 in damages, the RM2,000,000.00 in aggravated damages, or loss of reputation. [53] During his testimony regarding the presentation of the slides, this Court earned PW2 to be careful before he answers questions. PW2 additionally repeatedly apologized for mistakes in his oral evidence when confronted with contradictions involving the shareholding records and the 'without prejudice' labelling of a LoD. Looking at how the whole evidence of the Plaintiff unfolded before this Court at trial, even the credibility of PW1 is questionable as she did not really know the evidence (documentary evidence in particular), as with PW2. [54] Undeniably, PW2 is in a situation of his own creation where he is personally interested in the outcome of this suit. His shifting stances and the material inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the operational failures and shareholdings significantly impaired his credibility before this Court. The documents, at the end of the day, spoke for themselves as to the material breaches by the Plaintiff. See Kualiti Alam Hijau (M) Sdn Bhd v HHC Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] MLJU 1575; Tay Mary v Capitol Prosper Sdn Bhd [2024] MLJU 3232; Cheah Theam Kheng v City Centre Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) and other appeals [2012] 1 MLJ 761; Khew Chee Sun v Best Tile Marketing Sdn Bhd [2024] 8 MLJ 620; HAL v HAS [2024] MLJU 984. This Court's Conclusion [55] In light of the evidence presented, admissions made, and this Court's assessment, this Court hereby dismisses the Plaintiff's suit in its entirety. This Court finds that the Defendant has successfully proven that the Plaintiff committed multiple material breaches of the agreement. That justified the Defendant's issuance of termination on 28.3.2023 under Clause 10.2(a) of the agreement. [56] The submissions of recycled LoDs and photographs from previous assignments in 2020 and 2021 for the 2022 Job IDs went to the substratum of the contract, a fact explicitly admitted by the Plaintiff in its own correspondence where it stated that the same. [57] This Court further finds that the termination of the agreement was lawful and valid in law. Under Clause 10.2(a) of the agreement, the Defendant was not contractually required to provide a 14-day rectification period for a material breach, and the Plaintiff's attempt to rely on the rectification provisions for non-material breaches is misplaced. [58] Moreover, the Plaintiff's conduct following the termination specifically the return of the Defendant's property (receipt books, ID badges, and letters of authority) and the acceptance of the RM100,000.00 security deposit refund without objection demonstrates that the Plaintiff acquiesced to the termination at the material time. [59] Regarding the Plaintiff's claim for the RM5,000,000.00 in damages, the RM2,000,000.00 in aggravated damages, and the RM2,000,000.00 in exemplary damages, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Plaintiff's representative PW2 conceded during cross-examination that there was nothing in black or white or any documentary evidence before this Court to substantiate these exorbitant sums or to prove any loss of reputation. In the absence of proof or actual loss, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought. See Federal Court's decision in Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229; [1979] 1 MLRA 81. [60] Conversely, this Court accepts the evidence adduced by the Defendant regarding the calculation of the RM806,925.00 sum. This amount was accurately derived from the contractual penalty provisions in Appendix D, item (d)(iii) which allowed for a penalty of five times the LoD rate (RM35.00) for wrongly prepared reports. The calculation - multiplying 23,055 defective accounts by the RM35.00 rate was clearly guided by the contract and represents the cost the Plaintiff would have been liable for had the agreement remained in force to rectify proven breaches. [61] In conclusion, the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs. This Court finds that the Defendant acted within its contractual rights to protect its interests and integrity following the Plaintiff's fundamental failure to perform its core obligations. This Court's Orders [62] The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed in its entirety. [63] The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Defendant the sum of RM806,925.00 being the sum of the contractual penalty applied to the 23,055 accounts for which the Plaintiff failed to provide contractually compliant proof of service. [64] Interest of 5% per annum on the judgment sum to be calculated from the date of this judgment until full and final settlement. [65] Costs of this legal action is awarded to Defendant in the sum of RM75,000.00 subject to allocator. DATED 12 MAY 2026 mer ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Siva Ganish together with Norazreen Binti Abd Rahim Ravi Shangar & Associates (Kuala Lumpur) For the Defendant: Natalia Izra Binti Dato' Nasaruddin together with Tengku Nazmi Bin Tengku Anuar Azmi & Associates (Kuala Lumpur)