The Court of Appeal on December 11 overturned a High Court decision granting summary judgement in favour of Normila Sdn Bhd (the respondent) against Sinohydro-Pahaytc Joint Venture Sdn Bhd (1st appellant) and Pahaytc Sdn Bhd (2nd appellant). The judgement involved a payment dispute arising from a sub-contract agreement dating back to 2011.
The High Court previously ruled in favour of Normila Sdn Bhd, ordering the appellants to pay BND271,455.89 plus interest and striking out their counterclaim of BND76,976.98. Costs were awarded against the appellants. However, the Court of Appeal identified errors in the trial court’s reasoning and found triable issues warranting further deliberation.
The case centres on a 2011 sub-contract agreement between Normila (the subcontractor) and Sinohydro-Pahaytc Joint Venture (the principal contractor) for works on the Ulu Tutong Dam project. The project, valued at BND3,487,099.80, was executed by Normila and completed in 2018.
Disputes arose over payments, with Normila claiming an outstanding balance of BND271,455.89 after partial payments were made during the contract period. The appellants countered, alleging overpayments and a balance due to them of BND76,976.98, citing contra items for materials and other deductions.
The High Court granted summary judgement to Normila, concluding that the appellants had failed to demonstrate a viable defence. In the appellate hearing presided over by Chief Justice of the Brunei Supreme Court Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong and Justices Michael Lunn and Sir Peter Gross, the appellants argued that the trial court misunderstood their defence and overlooked critical triable issues. The appellate court identified two key issues:
EXISTENCE OF TRIABLE ISSUES
The court noted discrepancies in the parties’ accounts regarding the balance due, specifically over disputed contra items totalling BND352,462.76. The appellants contended that these items justified their counterclaim and negated Normila’s claim.
The appellate court emphasised that summary judgement procedures are intended to address cases with no real prospect of success and should not substitute a full trial for resolving factual disputes.
LIABILITY OF THE 2ND APPELLANT
The High Court held that Pahaytc, though not a party to the sub-contract, had assumed liabilities due to its involvement. The appellate court disagreed, finding this conclusion premature and requiring further evidence to substantiate such a claim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgement and ordering an expedited trial to resolve the disputes. Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.
Lawyers Lim Boon Khai and Loo Shyh Cherng Cedric of Messrs Raed Lim represented the appellants. Lawyers Veronica K Rajakanu and Pao Jia Wan of Messrs VK Rajakanu and Associates represented the respondents. – Fadley Faisal
