Back
2021 MarsdenLR 44
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
GABUNGAN IKHLAS CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
YEE YEEN FOONG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-330-08/2019]
Parties must substantiate claims with evidence in breach of contract cases; mere allegations without concrete proof cannot suffice for damages.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 – Sections 101, 102, 103, and 104 – Tenancy Agreement – Dispute regarding termination and damages due to alleged wrongful termination of tenancy agreement – Plaintiff failed to prove wrongful termination as there was no notice provided and reliance on uncommunicated police report was improper – Defendants did not unlawfully terminate the tenancy. (Paras 60-148)
(B) Contracts Act 1950 – Section 74 – Breach of contract claims must be substantiated with evidence rather than conjecture – Claim for damages dismissed as unproven. (Paras 123-145)
(C) Doctrine of Privity – Only parties to the contract can sue for breach and benefit from it – Plaintiff not party to the original tenancy agreement could not claim damages. (Paras 66-68)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff, an electrical contractor, sued the Defendants for damages following a claimed wrongful termination of a tenancy agreement, asserting losses due to being locked out by alleged agents of the Defendants.
Findings of Court: Defendants accepted rental payments and did not terminate tenancy; claims and counterclaims were unsubstantiated by evidence. (Paras 148)
Issues: Whether there was wrongful termination of the tenancy, proper notice of termination, and whether Plaintiff breached tenancy terms. (Paras 60)
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that merely lodging a police report does not constitute termination of tenancy; Plaintiff’s allegations lacked evidential backing. (Paras 88-90)
Result: Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs; Defendants’ counterclaim allowed with costs.
Key Points: - A party must prove its case on a balance of probabilities, and special damages must be specifically proved with real evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Only parties to a contract can sue for breach; a non‑party cannot claim damages under the doctrine of privity (!) (!) . - The plaintiff failed to prove wrongful termination because it relied on an uncommunicated police report and could not show the defendants acted as agents (!) (!) (!) .
What is the burden of proof required for breach of contract claims under the Contracts Act 1950?
What are the rights of a non‑party to an original tenancy agreement in a contract dispute?
Did the plaintiff substantiate a claim that the defendants wrongfully terminated the tenancy?
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia conducting business as an electrical contractor in Shah Alam Selangor.
[2] The 1st and 2nd Defendants are partners of a business known as L & F City Management.
[3] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants are for general, special and exemplary damages arising out of what they claim was a wrongful termination of a Tenancy Agreement dated 1 February 2018 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
[4] In their Statement of Claim the Plaintiffs have claimed as follows:
a) Damages amounting to RM2,009,600.00;
b) Exemplary damages;
c) General damages;
d) Other damages to be assessed;
e) Interest at 5% from date of filing of the Writ;
f) Costs; and
g) Any other reliefs which this court deems fit.
[5] The Defendants have filed their Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim against the Plaintiff's claim. Essentially the Defendants' defence is that they are not liable for the losses allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs.
[6] In their Amended Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are seeking for an order to compel the Plaintiff to remove the canopy and/or container abandoned by the Plaintiff on the property and for damages to be assessed by this court.
Background And Brief Facts
[7] Pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement dated 1 July 2016 the Defendants rented a vacant agricultural piece of land known as Geran Mukim 805, Lot 453, Mukim Semenyih, Daerah Ulu Langat, Selangor with postal address Lot No 453, Jalan Bangi, Batu 1, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the said Land) from its owner, one Dato' Tan Yok Chin. This is the Principal Tenancy Agreement with its duration from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019.
[8] Clause 10 of the Principal Tenancy Agreement expressly allows for the Defendants to sublet the said Land to any third party.
[9] Pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement dated 15 March 2017 the Defendants subletted a portion of the said Land (Block C) to an individual known as Ching Chyang Woei. This Tenancy Agreement will be referred to as the 1st Tenancy Agreement (1st TA).
[10] It is not disputed that although the 1st TA was in the name of Ching Chyang Woei, the deposit and monthly rental payments were paid by the Plaintiff.
[11] Sometime on or about January 2018 the 2nd Defendant was contacted by one Bong Kim Yun who is one of the directors of the Plaintiff company. Bong Kim Yun informed the 2nd Defendant that he wished to change the name of the Tenant in the 1st TA to the Plaintiff company in order to facilitate in the application for license or permit for the Plaintiff's foreign workers.
[12] As a result of that representation a 2nd Tenancy Agreement (2nd TA) was entered into. The 2nd TA is dated 1 February 2018 and remained in force until 30 June 2019.
[13] On 11 January 2019 the 2nd Defendant lodged a police report against the Plaintiff alleging that he had been deceived by the said Bong Kim Yun into executing the 2nd TA and that he intended to revoke it and revert back to the previous agreement.
[14] On 30 January 2019 the Plaintiff was locked out of the said Land by a group of intruders or trespassers 2 police reports were lodged by the Plaintiff. This civil suit that has been filed is a result of the incident which happened on 30 January 2019. Further light will be shed on the events of that day later in this judgment.
Witnesses Called By Parties At The Trial.
[15] A total of 4 witnesses were called to give evidence at the trial. The Plaintiff called 2 witnesses. They were:
SP 1: Mohd Majdi b Mohd Khalid, the Plaintiff's director and shareholder;
SP 2: Bong Kim Yun, the Plaintiff's other director.
[16] Evidence for the Defendants was given by the 2nd Defendant (SD 1) and Mr Leong Yee Chuan (SD 2) who is a certified freelance interpreter/translator.
[17] Earlier before the commencement of the trial parties had recorded by consent that no adverse inference was to be drawn from the non-calling of the 1st Defendant. It was agreed between parties that the e
