SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 MarsdenLR 39

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA

ABDUL MALEK AHMAD PCA , RICHARD MALANJUM JCA , AUGUSTINE PAUL JCA


NORTH SOUTH PROPERTIES SDN BHD
versus
DAVID TEH TEIK LIM

CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-04-23-2002

Decided On : 08-16-04

Advocates:
For the appellants - Suria Kumar DJ Paul; M/s Suria Kumar & Co
For the respondents - Ong Kim Buai (Julie Teh Chooi Gan with her); M/s Dorairaj, Low & Teh

JUDGMENT

Abdul Malek Ahmad PCA:

The respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the Sessions Court, are partners in Pakatan Reka Arkitek while the second, third and fourth appellants are directors of the first appellant. The respondents had rendered architectural services to the first appellant for a project at Lots 80 and 81 at section 7, Petaling Jaya.

By letter dated 7 May 1991, it was agreed between the parties that the first appellant was to pay the sum of RM217,002.50 to the respondents for the architectural services rendered. The letter is reproduced below:

pakatan reka arkitek

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN

Reference: PRA/9001/A

7 May 1991

North South Properties Sdn Bhd

Bangunan North South

60 Jalan Besi

Off Jalan Sungei Besi

57100 Kuala Lumpur

Dear Sirs,

PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING ON LOTS

80 & 81, SECTION 7, PETALING JAYA,

DISTRICT OF PETALING

_ Agreement On Professional Fees

We refer to the meetings between your YB Tuan Haji Megat Najmuddin and our Mr David Teh on the payment of professional fees for services rendered for the above project.

We write to record that the sum of $217,002.50 has been agreed as full settlement of fees for services rendered by Pakatan Reka Arkitek. North South Properties Sdn Bhd has requested that payment be made via a post-dated cheque No. MBB 259920 dated 29 October 1991.

The two parties, Pakatan Reka Arkitek and North South Properties Sdn Bhd further agreed on the following:

1. That Pakatan Reka Arkitek has discharged their duties faithfully.

2. That there will be no further claims by one party against the other on any matters arising.

3. That in appreciation of the goodwill extended by Pakatan Reka Arkitek, North South Properties Sdn Bhd agreed to consider a further sum as compensation for termination of Pakatan Reka Arkitek's services.

As requested, in interest of the project and for goodwill, we forward herewith our 'letter of release'to enable another Architect to be appointed.

We would be grateful if you could sign the duplicate of this letter to confirm the above agreement.

Yours faithfully

PAKATAN REKA ARKITEK NORTH SOUTH

PROPERTIES

SDN. BHD.

Sgd. Sgd.

David Teh

In addition, the second, third and fourth appellants also gave an undertaking dated 9 May 1991 that the agreed sum would be paid on or before 29 October 1991. That undertaking reads:

NORTH SOUTH PROPERTIES SDN BHD

BANGUNAN NORTH SOUTH, 60 JALAN BESI,

OFF JALAN SUNGAI BESI, 57100 KUALA LUMPUR

Your Ref: PRA/9001/A Date: 9 May 1991

Pakatan Reka Arkitek Perakuan di bawah

39A Jalan Dato Haji Eusoff Sek. 48 Akta Setem

Kompleks Damai 1949

50400 Kuala Lumpur Disahkan di bawah

Seksyen 47A, (1)

Penalti sebanyak

$25/- dijelaskan/

diuruskan sepenuhnya.

Sgd.

Timb. Pemungut Duti

Setem, K. Lumpur

JHDN (illegible)

Dear Sirs,

PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 80 & 81 SECTION 7, PETALING JAYA DISTRICT OF PETALING AGREEMENT ON PROFESSIONAL FEES

We refer to your letter dated 7 May 1991 regarding the above.

We, the undersigned being the Directors of the Company hereby give you our joint and several undertaking that the sum of M$217,002.50 referred to paragraph 2 (two) of the said letter dated 7 May 1991 shall be paid to you on or before the 29th day of October 1991.

Yours faithfully

NORTH SOUTH PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Sgd. Sgd.

HJ MEGAT NAJMUDDIN YAP CHENG HOCK

BIN DATO SERI (DR) IC NO 1493019

HJ MEGAT KHAS

IC NO 2082834

Sgd.

WITNESS:

NAME: GO PECK HAR

IC NO: A 0354265.

However, when the abovementioned cheque was presented for payment, it was stopped. The respondents commenced the action to recover the amount and filed an application for summary judgment under Subordinate Courts Rules 1980, O. 26A (hereinafter " the SCR " ).

It was the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that:

(a) this action is time barred since the architectural services rendered was up to 27 April 1991, the date the cause of action arose for non-payment, whereas the action was commenced only on 24 October 1997 limitation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top