An admission of debt by a defendant can support a summary judgment application, provided the admission is clear and unequivocal, and defenses raised are insufficient to create a triable issue.

JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo J:

Introduction

[1] This Court had allowed the plaintiff's application (Encl 6) for summary judgment against the defendant for the balance owing for rectification and engineering services amounting to RM1,226,420.00 together with interest thereon at 5% per annum from date the writ was filed (19 September 2024) until full satisfaction and agreed costs of RM5,000.00. This is the grounds for the decision made on 13 January 2025.

Background

[2] The plaintiff is a private limited company providing engineering and construction services.

[3] The defendant is a private limited company in the oil and gas industry.

[4] In its writ (Encl 1), the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had on 29 November 2023, placed an order and reserved services for rectification works and engineering services for the project "Provision of Pegaga Subsea Flange Seepage Rectification Services" ("Order 1") and secondly, on 8 January 2024 placed an order and reserved engineering services for the project "Provision of Engineering, Procurement, Construction & Transportation & Installation for South Furious-30 (SF-30) Water Flood Phase 2" ("Order 2").

[5] The plaintiff had agreed to supply and deliver the services for both orders

Plaintiff's Claim

[6] It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff has carried out its duties, completed and delivered all services according to the milestones for O 1 and O 2. Invoices were subsequently issued to the defendant for the payment of these orders.

[7] The defendant acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff's invoices and had never disputed the invoices. The defendant effected payment in part and defaulted payment of the balance. That the defendant expressly said it is effecting payment of 30% of the amount invoiced is an admission of the debt owing.

[8] The plaintiff hence claims (Encl 2, para 26):

(a) for the balance of RM1,226,420.00 ("the "Said Sum") to be paid within 14 days from the date of judgment;

(b) interest on the Said Sum at 5% per annum until full satisfaction;

(c) costs; and

(d) such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

Defendant's Defence And Counterclaim

[9] The defendant in its defence and counterclaim (Encl 5) claimed that the plaintiff has breached implied terms and thus, rendering the contract void pursuant to s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 . In summary, the defendant pleads that the plaintiff breached an implied term that the software used to carry out its works has to be licensed, and deliverables in the form of documentation have to be in native format.

[10] The defendant's asserted that the previous payments it made to the plaintiff were made without the knowledge that plaintiff had utilized unlicensed software to provide its engineering services. As the plaintiff had also failed to deliver complete documents, the defendant had ceased payments.

[11] The defendant counterclaims a sum of RM4,750,000.00 against the plaintiff, citing losses and damages suffered by the defendant from its contract with Brooke Holding Sdn Bhd ("BHSB"). It is the defendant's claim that the losses directly arose from the plaintiff's failure to produce deliverables in native format, and further relied on s 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 to recover by way of restitution, the sum of RM1,418,280.00, which was paid to the plaintiff for the rectification and engineering services that were allegedly provided in an illegal manner

Plaintiff's Application For Summary Judgment

[12] On the premise that the defendant has no defence to its claim, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment to be entered against the defendant for the Said Sum without having to take the matter to trial pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012, which provides that:

"Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a parti