JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

(Appeal against the Sessions Court 's Decision)

Preliminary

[1] This is an appeal against the 20 September 2024 decision of the learned Session Court Judge dismissing part of the appellant's claim.

[2] The decision was that the learned Session Court Judge had limited the appellant's claim at the lower Court , where instead of awarding the appellant the full sum of RM550,718.66, which the appellant claims should be made jointly and severally liable by the respondents, the learned Session Court Judge awarded only RM417,810.82 against the third respondent, not the respondents collectively.

[3] Contextually, two proceedings were before the Sessions Court . In the first instance, there was the action between the appellant as plaintiff and the first respondent, the second respondent and the third respondent as defendants. Nevertheless, the third respondent was not present during the trial. As a result, the plaintiff and the first and second respondents were the only parties involved in the trial.

[4] Additionally, there was a third-party action between the third respondent and BHF Multibina (M) Sdn Bhd and Badrul Hisham bin Bahasar. In this case, however, there was no third-party proceeding in view of the fact that the third respondent was not present during the trial.

The Case's Facts: An Overview

[5] A contract was entered into between the second respondent and the third respondent on 23 May 2017 ("contract") in which the third respondent was to execute and complete a project called "Projek Bekalan Air Luar Bandar Di Daerah Padang Terap, Kedah - Pakej C" ("project"). It had a total value of RM8,750,724.00, inclusive of GST.

[6] As the main contractor, the third respondent appointed the appellant as a subcontractor to supply and deliver pumps to the project.

[7] As part of the subcontract, the third respondent paid the appellant RM150,000.00 for down payments.

[8] Upon execution of a Deed of Assignment dated 31 May 2018 between the third respondent and the appellant ("Deed of Assignment"), the third respondent assigned to the appellant, up to the maximum amount of RM1,198,532.00, the money due and payable to the third respondent under the contract.

[9] In the Deed of Assignment, amongst others, the following terms are included:

(a) The assignment shall be irrevocable and remain in effect until the second respondent pays money due to the third respondent under the contract.

(b) The third respondent assigns to the appellant money payable or due and payable to the appellant under the contract, not exceeding RM1,198,532.00.

(c) The appellant shall be paid the value of the subcontract work executed under the contract.

(d) The third respondent shall do all things to ensure that the second respondent pays to the appellant all money otherwise due and payable to the third respondent under the contract.

[10] By way of an "Assent of Government to Deed of Assignment for Direct Payment to Third Party" dated 16 July 2018 ("Assent of Government"), the second respondent, through the first respondent, had stated its obligation and consented to the Deed of Assignment that the second respondent should make payments directly to the appellant.

[11] Concerning the contract, the appellant claimed it issued an invoice for RM1,122,200.00 to the first respondent on 27 September 2018 ("invoice").

[12] The appellant then received part payments from the first respondent totalling RM571,481.34.

[13] Regarding the amount paid by the second respondent, which was far less than the invoice amount, the first respondent confirmed that the interim payments for Nos 15 to 19 were released to the third respondent instead. This was caused by a technical error in the government's payment system (iGFMAS).

The Appellant's Complaints

[14] The appellant's complaint against the learned Sessions Court Judge's decision is as follows:

(a) The learned Sessions Court Judge failed to acknowledge that the first and second respondents had breached their obl