JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before me and I heard them together because they arise from the same action and turn on the same central question. Civil Appeal No: JA-12B-54-09/2025 is the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") dated 20 August 2025 which dismissed the appellant's claim for damages for wrongful detention and allowed the respondent's counterclaim for storage charges. Civil Appeal No: JA-12A-24-12/2025 is the appellant's appeal against the assessment of the further storage charges made on 27 November 2025 in the sum of RM198,144.00.

[2] The appellant, Cargotec Terminal Solutions (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, was the plaintiff below. The respondent, Western Logistics Sdn Bhd, was the defendant. For convenience I refer to them by their positions at trial.

Background

[3] The plaintiff supplies and services heavy container-handling machinery. The defendant operates a logistics business and at the material time, occupied an open, fenced and guarded yard at PLO 282, Pasir Gudang, which it rented from Kontena Nasional Berhad ("KNB").

[4] In January 2021 a Skylift 80HX bearing registration number JQP8874 (engine no.: 8567872, chassis no.: 0300048312) belonging to the plaintiff was placed on the defendant's yard. It was placed there on 15 January 2021 and remained there for more than four years. Its return was eventually ordered by the Sessions Court and on the material before me, it was returned on 18 September 2025. It is worth recording that the Perakuan Pendaftaran Kenderaan issued by the Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan records the registration number as JQP8874. The Statement of Claim, the judgment of 20 August 2025, the Notices of Appeal and the Grounds of the Sessions Court each record it as JPQ8874. The engine and chassis numbers are identical throughout and nothing turns on the difference, but I record it because the order for delivery up, which stands undisturbed, identifies the machine by the latter number.

[5] The parties gave two very different accounts of the arrangement under which the machine came to be placed on the yard-

(a) The plaintiff's case was that the machine was placed there free of charge, as a goodwill accommodation arising from the parties' business relationship, with no time limit and no mention of any charge. When its representative attended in or about March 2023 to retrieve the machine, the defendant refused to release it unless a "rental" was first paid. The plaintiff sued in the tort of detinue for return of the machine and for damages for its wrongful detention.

(b) The defendant's case was that free placement was permitted for 14 days only (15 to 28 January 2021), after which storage charges accrued under its standard practice and that it was entitled to withhold the machine until those charges were paid. It counterclaimed for storage charges.

[6] There is a related history. The plaintiff had earlier sued the defendant for unpaid service fees in Civil Suit No: JA-B52NCvC-100-11/2022. The plaintiff said the defendant's storage claim was a retaliatory afterthought. The defendant denied this.

[7] The action was commenced by originating summons on 10 October 2023. On 13 February 2024, on the defendant's application under O 28 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, the Court ordered the action to continue as if begun by writ. Pleadings were then filed and the action was tried on oral evidence on 17 April 2025. The plaintiff called one witness, Kalai Challvam a/l Muthusamy (PW1). The defendant called one witness, its Director N. Vijayan a/l C.P.K. Narayana Pillai (DW1).

[8] By its judgment of 20 August 2025 the Sessions Court-

(a) ordered the defendant to deliver up the Skylift to the plaintiff within seven days;

(b) dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful detention and the interest claimed on it;

(c) allowed the defendant's counterclaim, ordering the plaintiff to pay RM227,840.00 for storage from 28 January 2021 to 7 July 2023, with furthe