Running accounts can be enforced under the Contracts Act 1950 when supported by adequate documentation and acknowledgment of liability.

A. Introduction

[1] This appeal raises a novel question of whether a "running account" can be enforced under the Contracts Act 1950 ( CA ).

B. Background

[2] I will refer to parties as they are in the Sessions Court (SC).

[3] The plaintiff company (plaintiff) had provided medical outpatient services (Services) to the employees of the defendant company (defendant) from 1 February 2013 until 31 November 2015 [Period (Services)].

[4] The plaintiff filed this suit in SC to recover, among others, a sum of RM865,318.31 which is allegedly owed by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding the Services (This Action).

[5] To support This Action, the plaintiff has called one witness, Mr Dakshin Rajkumar, the plaintiff's General Manager (SP1). SP1 has testified, among others, as follows:

(1) the plaintiff had provided the Services to the defendant for which monthly invoices had been issued by the plaintiff to the defendant (Invoices);

(2) the Invoices stated that, among others:

(a) payment of the sums stated in the Invoices (Invoiced Sums) should be made within 14 days from the date of the Invoices;

(b) all items and balances shown in the Invoices "will be considered correct unless [the plaintiff is] notified in writing of any discrepancies within 14 days" from the date of the Invoices; and

(c) the plaintiff reserves the "right to charge an overdue interest of 2% per month on all outstanding balances" (Late Fee Interest);

(3) when the defendant did not pay the Invoiced Sums or was late in such a payment, the plaintiff would impose Late Fee Interest. The Late Fee Interest would be added to the Invoiced Sums and the total of the Invoiced Sums and Late Fee Interest (Outstanding Balance) would be carried forward to the following Invoice;

(4) the defendant only made certain part payments of the Outstanding Balance (defendant's Part Payments). The plaintiff deducted the defendant's Part Payments from the Outstanding Balance;

(5) the defendant did not pay a total Outstanding Balance of RM865,318.31 (Total Outstanding Balance). Hence, the plaintiff terminated the Services on 30 November 2015 (Termination of Services); and

(6) the plaintiff had demanded for the defendant to pay the Total Outstanding Balance. However, the defendant had failed to do so.

[6] To oppose This Suit, the defendant's Vice-President II, Finance Department, Puan Fitriah bt Ham dan (SD1), gave the following evidence, among others:

(1) the defendant had paid all the Invoiced Sums to the plaintiff (Alleged Full Payment); and

(2) to prove the Alleged Full Payment, SD1 adduced the following documents:

(a) the defendant's bank-in slips;

(b) the defendant's statement of accounts (defendant's Statements of Accounts); and

(c) bank statements of the defendant (defendant's Bank Statements).

The defendant's Statements of Accounts and defendant's Bank Statements had been unilaterally redacted by the defendant (defendant's Redaction). I will discuss the effect of the defendant's Redaction in Part F below.

[7] After a trial of This Action, the learned SC Judge (SCJ) gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff (SC Judgment) as follows:

(1) the defendant shall pay the Total Outstanding Balance to the plaintiff;

(2) the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the Total Outstanding Balance from the date of SC Judgment until the full payment of the Total Outstanding Balance; and