The burden of proof for contractual modifications lies with the claimant, and failure to fulfill statutory requirements may bar claims.

[1] The appeal before us was against the decision of the learned High COURT Judge in Kuala Lumpur High COURT Civil Suit No S-23(NCVC)-95-11/2013 given on 26 March 2015 allowing the Respondent's (the Plaintiff in the High COURT) claim. We had, after perusing the record of appeal and considering the written and oral submissions of learned counsels forthe Appellant and the Respondent, unanimously allowed the appeal in part with costs. We set aside the High COURT Order and ordered the deposit to be refunded. Our reasons appear below.

[2] For the purpose of this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were referred to in the High COURT.

Factual Background

[3] A production company based in India known as 'Popcorn Entertainment Pte Ltd' ("Popcorn") conceptualised an event known as the 'Global Indian Film Awards' ("GIFA"). GIFA is a yearly event highlighting the Indian film industry. Sometime in 2005, the Plaintiff participated in a bid to host the 2006 Global Indian Film Awards ('GIFA 2006') and succeeded in acquiring the sole right to host the GIFA 2006 in Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The Plaintiff submitted a sponsorship proposal dated 14 September 2005 of the Ministry of Tourism requesting that the Defendant be the main sponsor of the GIFA 2006. On 4 October 2006 Popcorn entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to organise and carry out promotional activities in respect of the GIFA 2006.

[5] The Defendant agreed to be the main sponsor. Subsequently, on 14 November 2006, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a sponsorship agreement in respect of the GIFA 2006 (the "Sponsorship Agreement"). Under the said Sponsorship Agreement the Defendant agreed to sponsor the GIFA 2006 for sum of RM10 million ('the Grant') subject to terms and conditions as expressly stipulated in the said agreement.

[6] In respect of the Grant, on the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant made 2 payments amounting to RM7 million to the Plaintiff. It is the Plaintiff's pleaded case that the Plaintiff is entitled to the remaining balance of the RM3 million as stipulated in the Sponsorship Agreement.

[7] On 9 December 2006 the GIFA 2006 event concluded. The Plaintiff demanded payment for the balance sum RM3 million of the grant vide a letter dated 19 January 2007. Together with the demand a report dated 26 December 2006 in support of the payment was submitted.

[8] The Defendant on 16 February 2007 informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant disputed the sum demanded. By a letter dated 20 February 2009 the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that after reviewing and verifying the claim submitted the Defendant approved only a sum of RM249,800.71, out of the RM3 million demanded.

[9] Dissatisfied with the decision the Plaintiff filed the suit in the High COURT on 3 March 2013. The Defendant filed its counterclaim seeking for a declaration that the Plaintiff breached the terms of the Sponsorship Agreement.

[10] After the close of the Plaintiff's case the Defendant submitted a no case to answer and called no witness to testify. It was contended by the Defendant that the Plaintiff case should fail on the basis that:-

(i) the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred; and

(ii) further or in the alternative, there is no evidence that the Sponsorship Agreement had been varied, and the Plaintiff had failed to fulfil the terms of cl 4(c) of the Sponsorship Agreement to claim the remainder RM3 million from the Sponsorship Grant.

[11] The learned High COURT Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff and allowed the Plaintiff's claim with costs and interest, and dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim.

The High COURT Findings

[12] In view of the submission of no case to answer at the close of the Plaintiff's case, the learned High COURT Judge had to