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

2014 MarsdenLR 776

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BOUSTEAD NAVAL SHIPYARD SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DYNAFORCE CORPORATION SDN BHD – Respondent


Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

[1] Dynaforce Corporation Sdn Bhd ("respondent") filed a civil suit before the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and claimed from Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd ("appellant") a sum of RM778,975.00 together with the interest and costs purportedly due to the respondent for cleaning services rendered at the appellant's dockyard in Lumut, Perak.

[2] After a full trial, the learned High Court Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant now appeals to this Court.

The Facts

[3] The parties agreed that, at all material times, the respondent was not the appellant's contractor Integrated Maker Sdn Bhd ("IMSB") appointed the respondent as a subcontractor by way of a letter of award dated 2 March 2002 (exh "P3") as seen at pp 117 to 119 of the Appeal Record at Part "C" of vol 3. For convenience, exh "P3" was worded in this way and will now be reproduced:-

[4] It is also undisputed that the respondent had no contractual relationship whatsoever with the appellant in respect of the cleaning services

[5] The appellant appointed IMSB as the main contractor by way of a letter of award dated 15 March 2001 ("the main contract") as seen at pp 114 to

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top