An agreement intended to influence public contract decisions is void under public policy, although this may not apply between private parties without evidence of public harm.

[1] The appellant instituted a claim against the respondent in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, for some payment pursuant to an agreement entered between them, known as an Introducer Agreement. The claim was dismissed by the High Court, as the Introducer Agreement was found to be an illegal contract pursuant to s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 , applying the principle of law as enunciated by this Court in Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Dato' Shazryl Eskay Abdullah, [2015] 5 MLJ 619. The appeal of the appellant at the Court of Appeal was also dismissed for the same reason.

[2] Leave was obtained from this Court to determine the question of law as to whether the principle of law on public policy in Merong Mahawangsa equally applies to an agreement made between two private parties. We have heard the appeal and had reserved our decision to a date to be informed to the parties. These are my decision and the grounds of my judgment.

Background Facts

[3] The Introducer Agreement came about following a construction project embarked upon by the Government of Malaysia to construct an additional building for Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontingen Kuala Lumpur (IPKKL) on Lot PT 112 Section 56 Mukim Bandar Kuala Lumpur (the Project). The Government of Malaysia appointed Pembinaan BLT Sdn Bhd as the implementer of the Project on its behalf. Mitisa Holdings Sdn Bhd was appointed as the Main Contractor and Generasi Tangkas Sdn Bhd (Generasi Tangkas) was initially appointed as the main Sub-Contractor. Later, the main Sub-Contactor was substituted with CRBC (Malaysia) Holdings Sdn Bhd (CRBC).

[4] According to the appellant, on 25 January 2007 he was approached by a director of CRBC, Mr Hu Bin who introduced the appellant to Mr Felix Ling, the director of Generasi Tangkas and Encik Mohd Johari Mat Aris who was the CEO of Mitisa, whereupon the appellant discovered about the Project. Mr Felix Ling was also a Project Director in CRBC. The respondent was a Class A contractor and was interested in obtaining some sub-contract works in the Project. According to the respondent, the appellant represented that he had some influence and connection with CRBC to enable the respondent to be engaged by CRBC to perform some of the sub-contract works.

[5] Following that meeting, the respondent issued a letter dated 19 November 2008 appointing the appellant as an Introducer and the terms of engagement between them were expressed in the Introducer Agreement of even date. The Introducer Agreement, in essence, appoints the appellant as the Introducer in relation to sub-contract works with CRBC. The obligations of the appellant are spelled out in cl 4(a) to (d) below:

"(i) Advise, negotiate and facilitate with information to the Sub-Contractor with regards to the revision of the First Quotation as defined in Clause 3(a)(i);

(ii) Compile all relevant documentation required for the Sub-Contractor to submit the second quotation as defined in Clause 3(a)(ii) of this Agreement;

(iii) Assist, liaise and work closely with the Sub-Contractor in matters that leads to obtaining the tender of the Project from the Contractor; and

(iv) Assist in securing the award of the Project to the Sub-Contractor by the Contractor."

[6] The other salient term of the Introducer Agreement is under cl 3. Under this clause, the respondent is oblige