An admission of debt must be clear and unequivocal for judgment to be granted under the Rules of the High Court 1980, emphasizing the distinction between an inquiry and an admission.

[1] This appeal is brought by the defendant against the decision of the High Court Judge, Kuala Lumpur, who, on 28 October 2008 dismissed its appeal to set aside the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar allowing the plaintiff's application under O 27 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980) to enter a judgment on an admission of fact by the defendant for the amount of RM1,310,806.02 and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the summons until full settlement.

[2] The facts of the case as stated in the trial judge's grounds of judgment are these:

The defendant appointed the plaintiff as its sub-contractor (see Letter of Offer dated 18 October 2000 in encl 4 exhb. "RS-1"). The sub-contract sum was RM11,720,207.25. The plaintiff says that all works under the sub-contract had been completed on 1 August 2002. The plaintiff filed the present action seeking to enter judgment for RM2,040,586.38 which the plaintiff claims is the balance of the sub-contract monies owed to them by the defendant.

The defendant disputes the plaintiff's claim and says that the sub-contract works were to have been completed by 27 February 2001. Therefore, there was a delay of 520 days and the defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff for the sum of RM1,820,000.00. The defendant further claims the sum of RM338,095.70 being costs of rectification works which the defendant says the plaintiff has failed to carry out. Therefore, the defendant claims against the plaintiff a total sum of RM2,158,095.00.

Plaintiff's Case

The plaintiff avers that by an undated letter the defendant requested a confirmation from the plaintiff on the balance due to the plaintiff as at 31 December 2004. In the defendant's letter, the plaintiff was requested to advise the defendant's auditors "of the correctness of the balances as stated below" which according to the defendant's record, the balance due to the plaintiff as at 31 December 2004 is RM1,310,806.02 (see encl 4 exh. "RS-2"). The plaintiff replied that according to its records the correct amount is RM2,040,586.38.

[3]Order 27 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980, reads as follows:

Where admissions of fact are made by a party to a cause or matter either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the Court may give such judgment, or make such order, on the application as it thinks just. An application for an order under this rule may be made by summons.

[4] It is in the light of the above provision that the plaintiff applied for judgment by admission, founded on a letter from the defendant seeking confirmation that a sum of RM1,310,806.02 was due to the plaintiff. For clarity we reproduce the letter in question which reads.

HASRAT USAHA SDN. BHD.

(Co. No 89823-V)

No 50-4-3A, Level 4, Wisma UOA Damansara,

No 50, Jalan Dungun, Bukit Damansara, 50490 Kuala Lumpur

Tel: 03-2715 1088 Fax: 03-2715 2088

PATI SDN. BHD.

17th Floor, Menara 2, Faber Towers

Jalan Desa Bahagia

Taman Desa

58100 Kuala Lumpur

Dear Sir,

Confirmation Request - PJR006 Project

For the purpose of the audit of our Company's financial statement, please advise our auditors of the correctness of the balances as stated below.

According to our records, the balance due to you is:

As at: 31 December 2004 Amount: RM1,310,806.02

Please sign on the space provi