1. ) MULTI AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND ASSIST SDN BHD 2. ) AUTO RESCUE SDN BHD 3. ) THAEVAN A/L VELLAIPOOVAN 4. ) VICKNESWARAN A/L SUPPIAH 5. ) HEMMA A/P VICKNESWARAN v PROTON EDAR SDN BHD
wa-12bncvc-73-05-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 December 2024 • WA-12BNCvC-73-05/2023 • 9 min read
13 cases cited
(0 SG, 13 foreign)
Catchwords
- The Appellants as Defendants in the Sessions Court, have filed this appeal against the entire decision of the Sessions Court Judge in allowing the Plaintiff’s suit therein. - For ease of reference, the respective parties shall be referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendants as they were in the Sessions Court. - The “plainly wrong” test is the applicable test when determining whether an appellate Court should intervene with the lower courts’ decisions. - Based on the facts, it is clear that the claim is one for refund and not for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Learned Sessions Court Judge has fully appreciated the dispute from the following observations in her Grounds of Judgment (GOJ). - Accordingly, it was the also the findings of the Sessions Court Judge that the Defendants had failed to prove any discrepancy in the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. On the contention by the Defendant that since there was no terms in the Agreement for refund of the Overpayment, thus, the Defendants are under no obligation to pay. The Learned Sessions Court Judge opined that such a defence as “tidak wajar” (para 25 GOJ). - Finally, under O. 55 of ROC, this appeal is by way of a rehearing and this court has assessed and weighed all the evidence and laws placed before this Court in its entirety. In this regard, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the Defendants’ appeal to warrant appellate intervention. - The Sessions Court Judge has not erred when she lifted the corporate veil as stated in her GOJ at paras 41 and 42. - Finally, under O. 55 of ROC, this appeal is by way of a rehearing and this court has assessed and weighed all the evidence and laws placed before this Court in its entirety. In this regard, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the Defendants’ appeal to warrant appellate intervention. Appeal dismissed with cost.
Judges (1)
Cases Cited (13)
MY (13)
[2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2014] 9 CLJ 1064 [2014] MLJU 1807 [2015] 1 CLJ 719 [2016] 2 MLJ 428 [2016] 4 CLJ 665 [2018] 2 CLJ 641 [2018] 2 MLJ 177 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2021] 3 MLJ 622 [2021] 4 CLJ 821
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-12bncvc-73-05-2023)