The Court of Appeal upheld parts of the appeal based on insufficient evaluation of evidence by the trial judge, confirming uncontradicted claims while dismissing others due to inadequate proof.

JUDGMENT

Mariana Yahya JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by Meccilect Sdn Bhd, the abovenamed Appellant/ Plaintiff against the decision of the learned High Court Judge in the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam on the 15 December 2017, after a full trial. The learned High Court Judge (HCJ) dismissed the Appellant's claim with costs of RM10,000.00 to the Respondents.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties hereto shall be referred to as if they were in the High Court. The Appellant is the Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Defendants. This is the Plaintiff's appeal.

Salient Facts

[3] It is the Plaintiff's pleaded case that at all material times, the 1st defendant is a related company to the 2nd defendant and both companies are under the umbrella of the KNM group of companies. The company's search shows that both the registered and business address for the 1st defendant is located in Sabah while the 2nd defendant was based in Seri Kembangan, Selangor.

[4] The KNM Group wholly owns the 2nd defendant and has a 40% equity stake in a company known as Petrosab Petroleum Sdn Bhd which is a majority owner of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is also a majority owner of a company known as KNM OPGET (Sabah) Sdn Bhd which holds a 30% equity stake in the 1st defendant.

[5] On or about March 2014, Plaintiff carried out negotiations with the Defendants concerning the supply, installation and dismantling of scaffolding works for the construction of 22 tanks for the Samur Project ("Scaffolding Works") in Sabah. Subsequently, parties herein agreed for the 1st defendant to appoint Plaintiff as a contractor for the scaffolding works. All pre-contractual negotiations were held between the Plaintiff and both the Defendants.

[6] Both parties agreed that the rates for the said scaffolding works are as in paras 6 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Statement of Claim. We reproduce the agreed rates as follows:

a) For erection and dismantling

i. Light duty - RM24.00/m3

ii. Confine space - RM33.00/m3

iii. Columns - RM30.00/m3

(b) For rental

i. RM0.30/m3 for external and confine space

ii. RM0.28/m3 for columns

The rental charges were only to be imposed 30 days after the installation and after a 'green tag' was given.

(c) For dismantling of scaffolding that had been installed before Plaintiff's appointment

i. Light duty - RM9.60/m3

ii. Confine space - RM13.20/m3

(d) For tanks number 4501A and 4501B

i. Medium duty - RM27.00/m3

ii. Light duty - RM23.00/m3

iii. Rental rate - RM0.30/m3 from the date of Installation of the scaffolding and 'green tag'

[7] Apart from the agreed charges, Plaintiff is also entitled to impose manpower charges when instructions were given by the Defendants for Plaintiff to carry out modifications on the scaffolding which had been installed. Plaintiff carried out its obligations and responsibilities as instructed by the Defendants.

[8] The Plaintiff averred that both parties had agreed that Plaintiff is entitled to impose late interest payment at the rate of 1.5% every month on any sum which remains outstanding under the invoice upon expiry of 30 days from the date of invoice.

[9] Further, Plaintiff contended that Defendants had only paid for the invoices that were issued until December 2014. The Defendants had failed to make any further payments for the work done which is inclusive of the rental for the said scaffolding.

[10] The Plaintiff in para 14 of the Statement of Claim sought the following reliefs:

i. the principal sum of RM7,384,515.44;

ii. interest (as at 27 January 2016) in the sum of RM653,288.93;

iii. further interest of 5% per annum on the principal sum of RM7,384,515.44 from the date of filing the writ until realisation.

iv. other reliefs which is deemed fit and proper by the Court.

The details for the sum of RM7,384,515.44 are as per the Table prepared by the Plaintiff and enclosed together with the Statement of Claim and marked as "Lampiran A".

At The High Court

[11] Both parties had agreed that there were 7 issues to be tried before the learned HCJ