Back
2023 MarsdenLR 423
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
LEMBAGA PERINDUSTRIAN NANAS MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
CCA ADVERTISING SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: JA-12BNCvC-18-07/2021]
A contractual relationship can exist without a written agreement if key elements are met, and an acknowledgment of debt can refresh the cause of action under the Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 - Sections 26(2) and 27 - Contract Law - Existence of contractual relationship inferred despite absence of written agreement - Acknowledgment of debt can refresh cause of action - Appellate courts should defer to trial judges unless plainly wrong. (Paras 12, 19, 24, 40)
(B) Damages - Appellate court's reluctance to interfere with trial judge's assessment of damages unless erroneous estimate or wrong principle applied. (Paras 33, 38)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff produced Technical Videos for the 1st Defendant, who accepted them but failed to pay. The Plaintiff claimed unpaid amounts, which the 1st Defendant contested on grounds of lack of contract and time-bar.
Findings of Court:
The court found a contractual relationship existed and acknowledged the debt, allowing the Plaintiff's claim.
Issues: The main issues were whether a contractual relationship existed without a written agreement and whether the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of a written contract does not negate the existence of a contract when key elements are satisfied, and acknowledged debts can refresh claims under the Limitation Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background regarding the technical videos. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. existence of a contractual relationship. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. discussion on whether the claim is time-barred. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. acknowledgment of debt and its implications. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. principles regarding quantum of damages. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 7. conclusion and reasoning for dismissing the appeal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant/ 1st Defendant against the decision of learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") who allowed the Respondent's claim for the unpaid sum of money in relation to the production and editorial works of seven technical videos ("Technical Videos") prepared and delivered by the latter.
[2] For ease of reference of this appeal, parties will be referred to as they were in the proceedings before the Sessions Court.
[3] As a brief background of facts, after a full trial at the Sessions Court, the Plaintiff's claim was allowed by the SCJ whereby the 1st Defendant was ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the general damages of RM20,000.00 and the special damages to be later assessed by another SCJ.
[4] Based on the notes of proceedings before the Sessions Court, it was not disputed by both parties that on 2007, the then Director General of the 1st Defendant, Haji Rahmat bin Mustaffa (SD2), had appointed Festival Laman Sdn Bhd ("Festival Laman") to produce the Technical Videos which contained various aspects of learning, training and guidance as to be used by the 1st Defendant's employees in conducting courses to agriculture entrepreneurs who are interested in planting of pineapples.
[5] For purpose of preparing the Technical Videos, Festival Laman had appointed Mr Suresh Kumar Rajadorai (SP1) as its external consultant.
[6] However when the Technical Videos were about to complete, SD2 had retired and subsequently the project to produce the Technical Videos was abruptly stopped midway.
[7] On or about June 2008, Shahdan bin Salim (SD6) who was SD2's Deputy at that time (later he was appointed as the Director General of the 1st Defendant) met SP1 and requested SP1 to complete the Technical Videos as the 1st Defendant strenuously wanted them to be part of the latter's product during the launching of Malaysia Agriculture, Horticulture and Agrotourism Exhibition 2008 ("MAHA 2008") by the then Prime Minister.
[8] Based on the request of SD6, on 14 July 2008, the Plaintiff issued an invoice No 0170A of RM320,000.00 entitled Penerbitan Video Teknikal Penanaman Nanas (Exhibit P7) to the 1st Defendant detailing about 5 stages of work as to complete the production of the Technical Videos. SP1 later worked with the Plaintiff's employees to re-do the Technical Videos since there were errors to the initial facts and some pertinent facts were overlooked. SP1 also attended approximately 3 working meetings with the 1st Defendant to re-write the script, add new photos and re-record the voice over before the Technical Videos were finalised.
[9] Upon completion of the works, the Technical Videos were handed over to Amar Ahmadi bin Thalip (SD4) via delivery orders dated 10 August 208 and 12 August 2008 respectively (Exhibit P6). There was no dispute on the acceptance of the Technical Videos by the 1st Defendant. In fact, one the 1st Defendant's employee, Salahuddin bin Idrus (SD5) admitted that the Technical Videos were played during MAHA 2008.
[10] The acceptance of the Technical Videos was further evident by the 1st Defendant's letter dated 25 May 2012 to the Plaintiff entitled llTuntutan Bayaran Perakaman Video Teknikal Penanaman Nanas melalui Invois No 0170A" (Exhibit P11) in which SD6 admitted receiving the Technical Videos.
[11] It is pertinent to note that in the Statement of Defence, the 1st Defendant and other Defendants pleaded the following, i
