JR JOINT RESOURCES HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. v SYSTEM PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE SDN. BHD.
Catchwords
Based on the totality of the evidence and the legal principles established during the trial, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has proved its claim on a balance of probabilities, while the Defendant has failed to substantiate its Counterclaim. The decision in favour of the Plaintiff is grounded in the following findings: (1) Establishment of Debt and Admission of Liability - The Plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case of indebtedness by producing the Statement of Account and the underlying monthly invoices. - Crucially, during cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the outstanding debt was "partly payable," directly contradicting the Defendant's pleaded defence that sought a total dismissal of the claim (2) Application of the Fuji Xerox Principle (Estoppel) - This Court applies the principle in Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (supra) of estoppel, finding that the Defendant’s conduct over a three-year period confirmed the validity of the invoices - The Defendant: (i) Continued to utilize the services of the workers supplied by the Plaintiff (ii) Collected full payment from its own clients for the labour provided (iii) Made periodical payments amounting to approximately 70% of the total invoiced sum without raising any contemporaneous written objection to the service rates or the lack of kong cards (iv) Consequently, the Defendant is estopped from disputing these invoices at this late stage, and its current objections are characterized as belated afterthoughts (3) Contractual Validity of Rate Revisions - This Court finds that the revisions to the service fees (RM9.16/hour and RM9.67/hour) were contractually justified under Clause 5.1 (Regulatory Intervention) - These revisions were commensurated with mandatory government minimum wage hikes and levy policy changes - The Plaintiff’s interpretation aligns with business common sense, as the alternative would force the Plaintiff to absorb all statutory cost increases, defying the objective aim of the agreement (4) Failure of the Counterclaim - The Defendant’s Counterclaim for RM1,725,244.00 is dismissed in its entirety for the following reasons: (i) RAPID Costs: The Defendant admitted at trial that the RM917,644.00 claimed for the RAPID project was actually its own responsibility under the Supplemental Agreement (ii) Lack of Substantiation: The Defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to justify its estimated back charge of RM150.00 per worker for other projects (iii) Administrative Fees: The claimed RM1.50/hour fee was conditional upon direct contracts with third parties that never materialized, a fact affirmed by DW1 Premised on the findings above, this Court metes out the following orders: (i) Judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff for the principal sum of RM10,686,520.52. The Defendant is accorded sixty days from the date of this Order to make full and final settlement (ii) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 5% per annum, calculated from 30.11.2021, until the date of full and final settlement (iii) The Defendant’s Counterclaim is dismissed with costs (iv) The Defendant is ordered to pay costs of the action to the Plaintiff, subject to the allocatur, in the sum of RM80,000.00 (v) All other reliefs sought in the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim are hereby dismissed. keywords : estoppel, contract
Judges (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-714-12-2023)