Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Let me say at the very outset that this appeal involves no question of principle. It involves, as do so many of the appeals that we are called upon to decide, a pure question of fact based upon the credibility of witnesses.

I am happily spared a recitation of the facts of this case. The history of the dispute, the state of the pleadings and the relevant evidence are all set out in extensoin the judgment of the learned judge. She has also identified the issues that she was called upon to try.

Before us, counsel for the appellant identified three issues, which he said, lay at the heart of the appeal. The first is whether the respondent had been employed as an architect for a project that the appellant had in plan. This question, said counsel, should receive a negative response. It was further submitted that even if the first question was answered in the affirmative, there was a second question the answer to which should be in the appellant's favour. That question is whether the employment had been by the appellant personally or whether it had been by the company of which the appellant was a director. Counsel complained that this issue was completely overlooked by the learned judge. The third and final issue has to do with the quantum claimed by the respondent and awarded by the learned judge.

Counsel on both sides took us through the evidence with meticulous care. I am grateful to them for their efforts. But at the end of the day, the evidence before the judge more than sufficiently supports her finding that it was the appellant who personally appointed the respondent to draw plans for the project in question. Counsel for the appellant repeatedly referred us to his client's oral evidence denying the appointment. However, our attention was drawn by counsel for the respondent to contemporary documentary evidence in the appellant's own hand that contradicted his viva vocetestimony. The learned judge approached the question of appointment by preferring the contemporaneous documents to the rather tenuous and tardy and unconvincing oral explanations given by the appellant on oath. This is how she put it:

Thus after scrutinising the oral evidence of the two main actors, namely PW1 and DW1 I am of the opinion that there are two conflicting versions as regards the alleged appointment of PW1. However when the two versions are compared with the documentary evidence and the conduct of the two parties, I find that PW1's version is more probable. In fact DW1's own oral testimony also shows that he was very interested in engaging PW1. This can be seen from the elaborate discussions between the parties; the fact that DW1 had given PW1 all the relevant documents pertaining to the two pieces of property, namely Lot 1578 & Lot 7272, and the fact that DW1 wrote to PW1 urging him to complete the plans for submission. (See Exhibits P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P9, P11, P12, P13, P14 and P16). Furthermore, from Exhibits P12, P13 and P14, it is clear that the Defendant acknowledged receipts of the plans, yet he said he was not interested in them. I find this difficult to believe as no reasonable person would accept anything that he/she does not want. I also cannot accept DW1's evidence that the plans were to be submitted to Jabatan Perancang for approval in principle only, as his own witness, DW2, an officer from Jabatan Perancang had given evidence that the proper procedure was to submit the plans for approval, to MPJB.

Was she right in this approach? I think that she was. There are a number of authorities from which support may be drawn for such an approach that the trial judge here adopted. It sufficient that I quote from two of them.

The first is Tindok Besar Estates Sdn Bhd v. Tinjar Co [1979] ; [1979] 2 MLJ 229, where Chang Min Tat FJ said (at p. 234):

Nevertheless, the learned trial judge expressed himself to be completely satisfied with the veracity of the respondent's witness and their evidence. He purported to come to certa