Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 1621

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
STT TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-21NCVC-54-08/2019]

Petitioner Advocates:Muhammad Nazrin Harith Mohd Mahyudin,Norhabibi Talib ,Respondent Advocate: Nik Mohd Nik Kar,Muhammad Asraf Shahbuddin

A plaintiff must prove the existence of a contract and establish the quantum of damages to succeed in a claim; failure to do so results in dismissal.

Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 71, 101, and 103 - Claim for compensation for services rendered post-contract - Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failure to prove existence of post-contract agreement and establish quantum of claim - No formal agreement post-expiration of contracts and insufficient evidence presented to support claims. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 60, 61)

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the claim on a balance of probabilities, which was not met in this case. (Paras 9, 10)

(C) Quantum Meruit - Plaintiff failed to establish entitlement under quantum meruit due to lack of evidence and formal agreement. (Paras 46, 60, 61)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed compensation for services provided after the expiration of two contracts, alleging a post-contract agreement based on past conduct and meetings. The Defendants contested the claim, asserting no formal extension was made.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of a post-contract agreement and held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of damages claimed.

Issues: The main issues included whether a post-contract existed and whether the Plaintiff established the quantum of their claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to establish a post-contract or the quantum of damages, affirming that the absence of a formal agreement negated the Plaintiff's claims.

Result: Claim dismissed with costs.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for compensation for services rendered after the expiration of two contracts [8]. - The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of a post-contract agreement and the quantum of damages on a balance of probabilities [9][11][38]. - No formal agreement was made between the parties following the expiration of the original contracts in October 2018 [15]. - The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of an express or implied contract for the alleged post-contract period [17][37]. - The Plaintiff had previously agreed in meeting minutes to provide certain corrective actions without cost [34][36]. - The Plaintiff failed to distinguish between corrective actions and maintenance works, and failed to prove which services were requested by the Defendants [39][55]. - The court found that the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, such as invoices and work orders, were insufficient to verify the performance or completion of the claimed services [39][53][54]. - The Plaintiff failed to participate in the tender process for a new contract after the original contracts expired [28]. - The court rejected the claim for quantum meruit due to the lack of evidence and the absence of a formal agreement or negotiation [47][51]. - The court declined to award nominal damages because the Plaintiff failed to establish the fact of damage or that the services were requested by the Defendants [61].

What is the burden of proof on a plaintiff to establish a claim for compensation for services rendered post-contract?

What are the requirements for a plaintiff to successfully establish a quantum meruit claim?

What is the effect of failing to prove the existence of a contract and the quantum of damages in a civil claim?

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim for compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. trial witnesses and agreed issues. (Para 7)
3. claim dismissed after review. (Para 8)
4. burden of proof lies with plaintiff. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. existence of post-contract questioned. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. no formal agreement post-expiry. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. plaintiff's arguments lack evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. tender process initiated by defendants. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
9. comparison with precedent case. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
10. plaintiff's claim for quantum meruit dismissed. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
11. proof of quantum required. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
12. vague invoices weaken plaintiff's case. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
13. conditions for compensation under contracts act. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
14. evidence of damages must be established. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
15. claims must be substantiated with evidence. (Para 55 , 56)
16. failure to prove claims leads to dismissal. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
17. final dismissal of plaintiff's claim. (Para 61)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

Introduction

[1] This is the Plaintiff's claim ("this Claim") against the Defendants for compensation for services rendered by the former after the expiry of 2 contracts.

Background Facts

[2] It is agreed that both parties had continuous contractual relationships since 2000 through numerous contracts entered into. The purpose of these contracts was as stated in the initial agreement as "Rudingan Terus Bagi Perolehan Sistem Pengurusan Keselamatan Bersepadu yang Komprehensif untuk Kementerian Penerangan Komunikasi dan Kebudaayan dan Agensi-Agensi di bawahnya Secara Sewa Beli Termasuk Penyelenggaran".

[3] A new agreement was entered into by the parties in 2012 ("the 1st Contract"). In continuation, another similar contract was entered between the parties on 7 October 2014 for, "Penyelengaraan Sistem Pengurusan Keselamatan Bersepadu (SPKB) Secara Komprehensit untuk Fasa 1 hingga VIII Kementerian Komunikasi dan Multimedia" (the 2nd Contract"). Both contracts expired in October 2018, namely 23 October 2018 for the 1st Contract while the 2nd Contract ended on 31 October 2018.

[4] Before the expiry, a way forward meeting was held and attended by both parties on 9 October 2018 ("the October 2018 Meeting"). After the expiry of both contracts, the Plaintiff contended that upon request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff had continued providing its service until September 2019 ("the Alleged Post Contract Period").

[5] On 20 September 2019, the 2nd Defendant issued a letter to the Plaintiff's agents and employees to halt and to discontinue the Plaintiff's access into the Defendants' premises ("the Letter"). However, prior to the issuance of the Letter, the Plaintiff had sent several invoices to the Defendants.

[6] Unsatisfied, the Plaintiff filed this Claim against the Defendants, in essence seeking the following payments from the Defendant:

(a)RM31,075,55.05 as of 30 September 2019 including GST of RM1,641,986.10 (for invoices No 23492, No 23493, No 23495, No 23519, No 23516, No 23494, No 23518);

And/or in the alternative

(b)RM22,296,212.13 as of 30 September 2019 including GST of RM1,210,492.12 (for invoices No 23492, No 23493, No 23495, No 23519, No 23516); and

(c)RM8,780,342.92 as of 30 September 2019 to the Plaintiff including GST of RM431,493.98 (for invoices No 23494, No 23518).

Trial

[7] The Plaintiff called three (3) witnesses during the trial, while the Defendants called four (4) witnesses respectively. The trial was conducted based on the following agreed issues:

(a) Whether the Defendants explicitly and/or impliedly have asked the Plaintiff to continue to prove services (the scope of services is the same as that which has been provided during the contract period between the plaintiff and the defendants after the expiration of the contract period;

(b) Whether there are instructions and/or requests made by the government employees and/or offic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document