HRA TEGUH SDN. BHD. v 1. ) GOLDIX RESOURCES SDN BHD 2. ) ADLIN SHAHARUDIN
wa-22ncvc-625-09-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 February 2025 • WA-22NCvC-625-09/2020 • 11 min read
Catchwords
Introduction 1.The Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Defendant is for the breach of payment under a Novation agreement and against the 2nd Defendant for a personal guarantee, guaranteeing the payment of the sum agreed under the novation agreement. Brief facts and background 2.The Plaintiff was appointed under a Master Development Agreement (“MDA”) by FELDA Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (“FIC”) to develop a piece of land at Sesyen 4- PG, Daerah Jempol, Negeri Sembilan (“the said land”) registered under the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA”). 3.The Plaintiff transferred all its rights and liabilities to the 1st Defendant under a Novation agreement dated 7/10/2016 for a consideration of RM3.5 million of which RM 1 million was paid to the Plaintiff’s lawyer to be held as a stake holder. 4.The 2nd Defendant had given a personal guarantee for the balance sum to be paid under the Novation Agreement. 5.The 1st Defendant failed to pay the balance sum as stipulated under the Novation Agreement and hence this suit was filed by the Plaintiff against both the Defendant to recover the sum owed under the Novation Agreement. 6.As a defense the Defendants contended that the Novation agreement was void ab initio as the FIC had entered into the MDA with the Plaintiff to a land belonging to FELDA without the approval of the Minister as required under the law. Conclusion 27.Based on the factors above the Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim as stated in paragraph 16 (a) to (e) of their amended Statement of Claim. The Defendants are obliged to make the payments under the Novation agreement and personal guarantee agreement as part of performance of the agreements. 28.The Court notes that the Plaintiffs are also entitled to be compensated for any damages or loss resulting from the Defendants breaching the agreements. This is provided in section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950 as follows: (1) When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by the breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. (2) Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. 29.The Court disallowed the compensation for any loss or damage as no such loss or damage was proven by the Plaintiff. 30.Finally, the Court allowed a cost of RM50, 000 to be paid by each Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Statutes Cited
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-625-09-2020)