JUDGMENT

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred as they were before the trial court. This appeal arose from the decision of the Sessions court which allowed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the refund of RM320,000.00. The Sessions court had also dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for RM250,000.00.

[2] After careful consideration of the submissions of both parties and the records of appeal, we found no merit in this appeal. We were not persuaded that the learned Sessions court Judge had erred in her evaluation of the evidence or that her decision was plainly wrong. We accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs.

Brief Background Facts

[3] On 28 March 2018, the defendant and the plaintiff had entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") along with a business advisory proposal ("BAP"). Pursuant to these documents, the defendant undertook to secure various governmental licences and approvals necessary for the plaintiffs business operations. In consideration of these services, the plaintiff had agreed to pay the defendant a professional fee amounting to RM450,000.00 exclusive of 6% GST.

[4] The scope of work outlined in the MOU and BAP required the defendant to obtain specific governmental licences and approvals necessary for the plaintiff's business operations. The agreed scope of work included the following:

(a) securing manufacturing license (ML) approval from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) within four weeks from the date of complete document submission;

(b) obtaining business license (BL) approval from the relevant local authorities within four weeks from the date of complete document submission;

(c) acquiring licensed manufacturing warehouse (LMW) approval from the Royal Customs Department within six weeks from the date of complete document submission;

(d) obtaining pioneer status approval from the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA) within six months from the date of complete document submission;

(e) securing expatriate position incentives from MIDA within four months from the date of complete document submission;

(f) obtaining an approved permit (AP) for the importation of used plastic materials within six months from the date of complete document submission; and

(g) securing approval from the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).

[5] As of 11 January 2019, the plaintiff had paid the defendant a total sum of RM351,000.00 inclusive of 6% GST. In return, the defendant was obligated to secure the necessary governmental licences and approvals as stipulated in the MOU and BAP.

[6] However, the defendant had only managed to obtain approval from DOSH and a temporary business licence issued by Majlis Perbandaran Klang (MPK). The temporary business licence was later revoked by the local authority. The defendant had failed to secure the remaining licences and approvals within the agreed timelines.

[7] On 31 January 2019, the plaintiffs factory was raided by DOE. During the raid, the enforcement officers informed the plaintiff that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report was a mandatory requirement for obtaining DOE's approval for the business licence. The plaintiff was made aware of this requirement through a circular dated 22 January 2019 issued by DOE.

[8] Prior to the raid, the plaintiff had not been informed of the necessity of the EIA report. The defendant, who had undertaken the responsibility to secure the required licences and approvals had failed to advise the plaintiff on this crucial requirement. This omission had a direct impact on the plaintiffs ability to lawfully operate its business.

[9] The plaintiff had subsequently engaged NHS Environmental Services Sdn Bhd on 6 March 2019 to prepare the EIA report. This appointment was made after the plaintiff became aware that the report was a mandatory requirement for obtaining approval from DOE.

[10] Following the preparation and submission of the report, DOE gran