UNIVERSAL CITY EDUCATION SDN. BHD. v U.C.I EDUCATION SDN. BHD.

ba-22ncvc-266-07-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 July 2025 • BA-22NCvC-266-07/2022 • 20 min read
14 cases cited (1 SG, 13 foreign)

Outcome

Based on the reasons above, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs subject to allocator.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-22ncvc-266-07-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

CONTRACT: The plaintiff is suing the defendant for an unpaid referral fee or commission of RM2,241,800 related to students recruited in 2020, 2021, and 2022, based on an alleged oral agreement between the parties - The defendant owns and operates City University Malaysia, a university that offers higher education opportunities, including management training programs and other internal courses - In 2020, the defendant appointed Eye Knowledge Sdn Bhd through an agency agreement dated 11.02.2020 to provide student recruitment services for City University Malaysia - Eye Knowledge has, in turn, engaged and appointed the plaintiff under a Student Recruitment Agency Agreement dated 01.07.2020 (“SRA 2020”) to provide student recruitment services for City University Malaysia - Eye Knowledge has subsequently instructed and authorised the defendant to make payments on its behalf to the plaintiff, as specified in SRA 2020, for students recruited by the plaintiff for City University Malaysia - Whether the plaintiff at all material times has been a student recruitment agent for the defendant - Whether there is a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for student recruitment services in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff has any basis to claim against the defendant for the quantum of RM 2,241,800.00 as commission for students recruited in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim against the defendant under unjust enrichment for student recruitment services rendered in years 2020, 2021 and 2022 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restitution from the defendant under Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 for the student recruitment services rendered in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleading - The plaintiff’s claim is based on an oral contract - Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded its case for and/or to support the allegations of an oral contract with the defendant for student recruitment services in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022? EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof - Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950.

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates the evidential and pleading demands of a claim founded on an oral contract, and the consequences of failing to plead the who, when, where and what of the alleged agreement — a failure fatal to a substantial commission claim.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a claim by Universal City Education Sdn Bhd against U.C.I. Education Sdn Bhd for an unpaid referral fee or commission of RM2,241,800 said to be due for students recruited in 2020, 2021 and 2022. The defendant owns and operates City University Malaysia, an institution providing higher-education programmes and in-house courses. The plaintiff's claim rested entirely on an alleged oral agreement between the parties under which the defendant was said to have agreed to pay the plaintiff a referral fee for students it introduced.

Because the plaintiff relied on an oral contract, the case turned on whether the existence and terms of that contract had been sufficiently pleaded and proved. The Court referred to the pleading rules requiring a party to plead specifically the matters on which it relies, so that the opposing party is not taken by surprise and the real issues are defined. It scrutinised the amended statement of claim for the essential particulars an oral contract requires — the identities of the persons who made the agreement on each side, the date, time and place of its formation, and its terms.

The Court found those essential details wanting: the amended statement of claim did not plead the identities of the persons involved in the alleged oral contract, nor the date, time and location of its formation, nor the terms of the alleged agreement. Absent those particulars, the plaintiff could not establish the oral agreement on which its entire claim depended. The Court accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the evidential and pleading demands of a claim founded on an oral contract, and of the consequences of failing to plead the who, when, where and what of the alleged agreement — a failure fatal to a substantial commission claim.

Why did the claim for the referral fee fail?

The claim depended on an alleged oral agreement, but the Court found the amended statement of claim failed to plead the essential particulars an oral contract requires — the identities of the persons who made it, the date, time and place of its formation, and its terms — so the plaintiff could not establish the agreement on which its entire claim rested.

What did the Court order?

It dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the unpaid referral fee or commission of RM2,241,800, with costs.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Enactment
s 102

Cases Cited (14)

SLR (1)
[2011] 2 SLR 63
UK (3)
[1902] 2 KB 190 [1936] 1 KB 697 [1955] 2 WLR 919
MY (10)
[1939] 1 MLJ 253 [1968] 1 MLJ 170 [1992] 2 MLJ 86 [1998] 1 MLJ 393 [2010] 8 MLJ 189 [2015] 1 MLJ 284 [2017] 4 MLJ 697 [2017] 5 CLJ 418 [2017] 5 MLJ 292 [2017] 8 CLJ 491

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncvc-266-07-2022)