Ahmed Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial court. This appeal arises from a dispute over the proper contracting party liable to pay architectural fees of RM1 million for services rendered in connection with the Berjaya Vietnam Financial City project in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

[2] The learned Sessions court Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and held the defendant liable for the outstanding architectural fees. The central issue before this court is whether the trial judge erred in identifying the contracting party, having regard to the principles of contractual privity and the doctrine of separate legal entities.

[3] Having perused the record of appeal and considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the learned Sessions court Judge had erred in her findings. I therefore allow the appeal for reasons that follow.

Brief Background Of Facts

[4] The plaintiff is an architectural company incorporated in Malaysia. The defendant is a public listed company engaged in property investment and development. The defendant held shares in Berjaya Vietnam Financial Centre Limited, a company incorporat