The doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of claims that have been conclusively adjudicated in prior proceedings, upholding procedural integrity and finality in judicial determinations.

(Enclosure 36 - Appeal To Judge In Chambers)

Introduction

[1] On 3 April 2024, the Garnishee (Respondent) filed an application (Enclosure 7) to strike out the Appelant's (Plaintiff) Notice of Application (Ex-Parte) dated 23 February 2024 and to set aside the Order to Show Cause dated 6 March 2024 on the ground that the application (encl 1) is res judicata.

[2] Not satisfied with the decision, an appeal was filed to the High Court. This Court on 26th of June 2025 has affirmed the decision of the Learned Deputy Registrar (DR) and dismissed the appeal with costs.

[3] The Plaintiff has once again filed an appeal on 23rd of July 2025, to the Court of Appeal (COA) against the decision of this Court. Parties are refered to as they were in High Court.

Background Facts

[4] The involved parties have depended on the case facts, and the Court has acknowledged the undisputed facts, reiterating the same details that were presented and referenced according to the Grounds of Judgment prepared by the Learned DR dated 27 September 2024.

(i) Main Judgment-22-413-2010

[5] In this case the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor (JC) has made a claim against the Defendants based on a contract dated 6 February 2005 which the terms among others, are that the First Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a consultant fee of 5% of the total sales made by the First Defendant to TESCO Stores (M) Sdn Bhd The First Defendant paid the fee for 8 months and then failed to pay it as agreed in the contract.

[6] On 11 September 2015 this Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/JC and ordered as follows:

High Court:

(a) The Defendants to pay the Plaintiff RM19,266,746.16.

(b) The Defendants to pay interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the amount of the judgment from the date of filing of the suit until the date of judgment and at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement.

(c) The Defendants are also ordered to pay costs of RM30,000.00 to the Plaintiff.

Court Of Appeal:

This appeal arose from the decision of the High Court which had allowed the respondent's claim against the appellants for the sum of RM19,266,746.16 together with interest. The decision of the High Court is affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court:

On 17 August 2017, the Federal Court has granted the Defendants leave to appeal on the following leave questions:

Leave question (i)

Whether a contract for payment of commission may last in perpetuity without being subject to an implied term as to termination upon reasonable notice?

Leave question (ii)

Whether in determining the quantum of damages payable for breach of contract for the payment of a commission in perpetuity is to be assessed in accordance with the decisions in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; [1843-60] All ER (Rep) 461 and Transfield Shipping Inc v. Mercator Shipping Inc [2009] AC 61 and upon an application of s 74 of the Contracts Act 1950 or whether it should be determined upon a multiplier and multiplicand basis?

The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

(see Ananda Kumar Krishnan v. Ng Chin Tai & Anor 2015 MarsdenLR 525; [2017] 5 CLJ 356 and Ng Chin Tai Trading In The Name And Style Of Lean Seh Fishery & Anor v. Ananda Kumar Krishnan 2019 MarsdenLR 1909; [2020] 1 MLJ 16 ; [2019] 10 CLJ 766; [2019] 7 AMR 209)

(ii) The F