The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appellant’s appeal in a case concerning the breach of a contract, affirming the respondents’ immunity from legal proceedings due to their actions taken in good faith under the authority of the Brunei Darussalam Central Bank (BDCB).
The appellant, Ir Dato Paduka Malai Ali bin Malai Haji Othman, trading as Perkhidmatan Perundingan dan Pengurusan Ilmu Alim, who had entered into a contract with OWMP, a company involved in the construction of new headquarters for the Central Bank, sought legal recourse after not being paid for his services. However, the court found that the appellant’s claim lacked sufficient evidence of bad faith, which is crucial in challenging the immunity granted to the respondents.
Evelyn Lee of Messrs YC Lee & Lee, representing the respondents, BDCB; Yusof bin Haji Abdul Rahman; and Hajah Rokiah binti Haji Badar; argued that the respondents were immune from legal action under Sections 27 and 30 of the BDCB Orders. The court concurred, highlighting that the respondents’ actions were carried out in good faith and within the scope of their functions. The onus of proof regarding bad faith lay with the appellant, but no such evidence was provided.
The court also found that the appellant was not properly qualified to undertake the work he claimed to have performed. At the time of the contract, the appellant was not registered with the Board of Architects, Professional Engineers and Quantity Surveyors and did not hold the required practicing certificate. The court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on a Ministry of Development press release, ruling that it did not apply to his case.
In a key point of contention, the appellant argued that OWMP had acted as the agent of the first respondent in entering into the contract with him. The court rejected this argument, noting that the contract was between the appellant and OWMP, and there was no evidence to suggest the first respondent was involved in the agreement.
Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, sitting with Justices Michael Lunn and Sir Peter Gross, concluded that the appellant had no cause of action, as there was no contractual relationship with the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings in the lower court. – Fadley Faisal
