The burden of proof rests on the claimant, and inadequate evidence may invalidate claims in contractual disputes.

Brief Facts

[1] In early 2005 the respondent in Rayuan Sivil No: A-02(NCVC)(W)-1174- 05-2012 (Rayuan 1174) was awarded a contract to carry out a road construction project in Tanjung Rambutan Perak (the project). The contract period was from 1 February 2005 to 15 August 2005. However, the project was completed by the respondent on 15 October 2005 when it was handed over to Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR).

[2] On 1 February 2005 the respondent appointed M/s VN Sunrise Sdn Bhd (Sunrise) as the sub-contractor for the project.

[3] At the same time the respondent appointed the appellant as the Project Manager for the project. The scope of work of the appellant was to manage the accounts for the project and to make payments to sub-contractors for goods and materials supplied.

[4] In order to receive payments from JKR, the respondent opened a Current Bank account with Bank Bumiputra Commerce Bhd in Johor Bharu and to facilitate payments by the appellant from this account, the respondent pre-signed cheques and authorised the appellant to make the necessary payments from time to time.

[5] It was agreed between the appellant and the respondent that the appellant would be paid management fees for services rendered during the project that is, from 1 February 2005 to 15 October 2005.

The Appellant's Claim

[6] The appellant's claim is that besides providing management services it had also given financial advances to the respondent. The appellant claimed for the balance sum of RM301,767.40 which was made up as follows:

The Respondent's Defence And Counterclaim

[7] The respondent denied receiving the sum of RM444,000 or any part thereof as financial advances from the appellant and that the sum of RM19,230 due as Management Fees as at 15 September 2005, had been paid to the appellant.

[8] In its counterclaim, the respondent claimed for the sum of RM535,836.04, which sum was purportedly paid by the appellant to Sunrise but was instead paid to the appellant itself.

Decision Of The High Court

[9] After a full trial the learned judge dismissed both the appellant's claim and the respondent's counterclaim.

[10] The appellant and the respondent filed separate Notices of Appeal and the two appeals namely in Rayuan 1174 and Rayuan Sivil No: A-02(NCVC)(W)- 1114-05-2012 (Rayuan 1114) were by consent heard together.

Decision Of The Court Of Appeal

[11] Upon reading the Records of Appeal, the written submissions of counsel for the appellant and the respondent in both the appeals and upon hearing counsel aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in Rayuan 1174 and allowed the appellant's appeal in Rayuan 1114 on the counterclaim with costs.

[12] Being dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant in Rayuan 1174 now applies for leave to appeal against the said decision to the Federal Court.

Grounds Of Decision

[13] The appellant's overall initial claim in Rayuan 1174 was comprised mainly of two parts namely, the sum of RM444,000 being financial advances and the sum of RM287,880.60 being Management Fees alleged to be owing by the respondent.

[14] In our judgment the Court is of the view that the appellant had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities, that it had in fact advanced the sum of RM444,000 to the respondent. To begin with, no evidence was adduced at trial to show that the respondent had even requested for the financial advances and more importantly, there was no evidence adduced to prove that the respondent had in fact received the said sum.

[15] The appellant in order to show that t