Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1942
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SEREMBAN
MOHAMAD HALDAR ABDUL AZIZ, J
PY BERSATU MAJU (M) SDN BHD LWN – Appellant
Versus
CERAMTEC INNOVATIVE CERAMIC ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Guaman Sivil No: NA-22NCvC-27-04/2025]
Summary disposal of a claim under the Rules of Court is legally inappropriate where material facts are contested. Questions concerning statutory compliance and the performance of contractual obligations that involve disputed evidence must be addressed through a full plenary trial to ensure procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14A rule 1, Order 33 rule 2, Order 33 rule 5 - Civil Procedure - Application for disposal of case without trial - Whether questions of law or construction of documents can be determined - When facts are in dispute, summary disposal is inappropriate - Court must ensure no injustice or prejudice is caused to parties - Summary determination of disputed facts involving statutory compliance and contractual breaches is improper as these issues require full trial with witness testimony and evidence. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The parties entered into management service agreements regarding the provision of worker housing. The defendant subsequently terminated the agreements, alleging the plaintiff failed to obtain mandatory certification for the premises under the relevant statutory provisions governing workers' housing. The defendant filed an application under the Rules of Court 2012 seeking to have specific legal and factual questions determined summarily by the court, asserting the contracts were void for illegality. The plaintiff contended that the certification requirements were only applicable post-contract and that the defendant was aware of the facts, thereby creating disputed issues of fact.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the dispute was unsuitable for summary disposal due to conflicting factual contentions regarding procedural compliance with the governing statute. The court emphasized that the determination of whether the statutory certification was required at the time and whether its absence rendered the contract illegal involved complex factual matters that could only be resolved through a full plenary trial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the court could summarily determine if the failure to obtain specific housing certification rendered the parties' agreements void and whether such summary adjudication would cause prejudice to the parties by preventing them from presenting their full case at trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Summary disposal under the Rules of Court is inappropriate where there are substantial disputes of fact. Because the alleged breaches, the timing of statutory requirements, and the conduct of the parties were all contested, the court held that a trial with witness testimony and evidence was necessary to ensure justice and avoid prejudice to the claimant.
Result: Defendant's notice of application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of defendant's application for legal determination (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural status of the court's decision and notice of appeal (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. factual background: contractual relationship and dispute regarding certification (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. inappropriateness of summary judgment due to existence of triable issues (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final order dismissing the summary application for trial (Para 19) |
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
Notis Permohonan Defendan (Lampiran - 10)
[1] Di dalam Lampiran - 10, defendan memohon kepada mahkamah di bawah A 14A k 1, A 33 k 2, A 33 k 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan / atau bidang kuasa sedia ada mahkamah untuk mendapatkan perintah-perintah seperti berikut:
(a) Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini memutuskan persoalan-persoalan undang-undang dan / atau fakta berikut:
(i) Sama ada plaintif diperlukan untuk memperolehi Sijil-sijil Perakuan Penginapan menurut s 24D Akta Standard Minimum Perumahan, Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja Minimum Perumahan, Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja 1990 sebelum ia boleh mengendalikan penginapan pekerja-pekerja yang menempatkan pekerja-pekerja dan kakitangan-kakitangan defendan?
(ii) Sama ada ketiadaan sijil-sijil perakuan penginapan menurut Perumahan, Standard Minimum s 24D Akta Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja 1990 menyebabkan Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Pengurusan bertarikh 9 November 2020 ("Perjanjian Perkhidmatan Pengurusan") dan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 24 Februari 2022 ("Perjanjian Tambahan") antara plaintif dan defendan (secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai dikuatkuasakan. "Perjanjian-perjanjian") boleh tidak menyalahi undang-undang, batal dan tidak sah?
(iii) Sama ada plaintif telah melaksanakan atau melaksanakan sebahagian Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut tanpa terlebih dahulu memperoleh Sijil-sijil Perakuan Penginapan menurut s 24D Akta Standard Minimum Perumahan Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja 1990?
(iv) Sama ada pelaksanaan atau pelaksanaan sebahagian daripada Perjanjian-perjanjian iaitu tindakan plaintif dalam menempatkan pekerja-pekerja dan kakitangan-kakitangan defendan di penginapan pekerja-pekerja tanpa Sijil-sijil Perakuan Penginapan menurut s 24D Akta Standard Minimum Perumahan Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja 1990, menyebabkan Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan, menyalahi undang-undang, batal dan tidak sah?
(v) Sama ada plaintif tidak berhak kepada sebarang relif yang dituntut disebabkan oleh Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan, menyalahi undang-undang, batal dan tidak sah?
(vi) Selanjutnya dan/atau secara alternatif sama ada kegagalan plaintif untuk memperoleh Sijil-sijil Perakuan Penginapan menurut s 24D Akta Standard Minimum Perumahan Penginapan dan Kemudahan Pekerja 1990 sebelum melaksanakan atau melaksanakan sebahagian obligasi-obligasinya di bawah Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut iaitu menyediakan penginapan pekerja-pekerja dan menempatkan pekerja-pekerja serta kakitangan-kakitangan defendan di penginapan pekerja-pekerja merupakan satu pelanggaran repudiatori terhadap Perjanjian-Perjanjian tersebut yang mana ia memberikan hak kepada defendan untuk menganggap dirinya telah dilepaskan daripada obligasi-obligasinya atau menamatkan Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut tanpa notis?
(secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai "Persoalan-persoalan")
(b) Sekiranya mana-mana dan/atau semua jawapan kepada persoalan-persoalan dalam perenggan 1(a) hingga 1(f) di atas dijawab secara afirmatif satu Perintah bahawa tuntutan plaintif ditolak.
(c) Kos atas dasar tanggung rugi peguam cara-anak guam dibayar oleh plaintif, dan
(d) Relif-relif lain dan/atau lanjut yang dianggap wajar dan suai manfaat oleh mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
[2] Notis permohonan defendan ini disokong oleh afidavit sokongan yang telah diikrarkan oleh Vincent Wong Yoon Sin, selaku Ketua Pegawai Kewangan defendan bertarikh pada 18 Julai 2025 (Lampiran - 11) yang diberi kuasa sewajarnya untuk mengikrarkan afidavit tersebu
