Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 3406

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PORT KELANG AUTHORITY – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Porres P Royan,Prem Ramachandran,Shaarvin Raaj Selva Kumar,Craig Ho Wai Ping ,Respondent Advocate: Nimalan Devaraja,Wong Shun Yong

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court found ADW2 to be void for lack of consideration under s 26 and declined to rely on extrinsic evidence to prove consideration. (!) (!) - The judgment discusses whether extrinsic evidence can establish consideration for ADW2, ultimately holding that no extrinsic evidence was admitted to support consideration for ADW2. (!) (!) (!) - The Court held that estoppel cannot override statutory provisions or validate a contract without consideration, and rejected estoppel as a means to uphold ADW2. (!) (!)

What is the status of ADW2 for lack of consideration under the Contracts Act 1950?

What is the role of extrinsic evidence in proving consideration for ADW2?

What are the effects of estoppel on challenging the validity of ADW2 given payment and accepted variation?

Table of Content
1. mutual agreement to vary contract terms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. high court held adw2 was valid; court of appeal found otherwise. (Para 4 , 12 , 14 , 25)
3. questions of law for appeal outlined. (Para 5 , 16 , 20 , 22)
4. findings on consideration requirements. (Para 18 , 19 , 24 , 26)
5. extrinsic evidence of consideration addressed. (Para 30 , 39 , 90 , 128)
6. court affirms previous ruling, appeal dismissed. (Para 135 , 145 , 153 , 154)

Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ:

[1] The appeal before us relates to the issue of whether contracting parties can subsequently mutually agree to vary the terms of an initial agreement, including the agreement with regard to consideration.

[2] In this judgment, we will refer to the parties as they were in the High Court. In the High Court, the appellant herein was the defendant, whereas the respondent was the plaintiff.

The Issue

[3] The issue in the courts below and before us revolves around whether the agreement, ADW2, entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was executed without consideration and therefore null and void under s 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 .

[4] The full trial was conducted at the High Court, which ended in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 3406

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAKUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD – AppellantVersusPORT KELANG AUTHORITY – Respondent

What is the status of ADW2 for lack of consideration under the Contracts Act 1950?

What is the role of extrinsic evidence in proving consideration for ADW2?

What are the effects of estoppel on challenging the validity of ADW2 given payment and accepted variation?

Cases Referred (5)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PORT KELANG AUTHORITY – Respondent