SILVERPACK SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Wong Sai Weng Berniaga Di Bawah Syarikat Wsw Multi Construction No. Syarikat: 001440461-m 2. ) Wong Siew Mun Berniaga Di Bawah Syarikat Venus & Mars Enterprise No. Syarikat: 002471198-v 3. ) EDGAR CHAN THIAN SENG

Case Significance

Illustrates the evidential burden where substantial construction works proceed without a written contract: absent proof of the agreed terms, both the employer's breach claim and the builder's counterclaim for payment fail on the balance of probabilities.

This High Court decision at Temerloh follows a full trial (bicara penuh) of a construction dispute between a packaging company as plaintiff and a builder as first defendant, together with associated parties. The plaintiff had engaged the first defendant to carry out renovation and repair works at its factory, but the parties had never reduced their arrangement to a written contract setting out the terms. When the plaintiff became dissatisfied with the works, alleging that they failed to meet the agreed specifications and that some parts of the factory had been damaged, it sued for breach of contract, and the first defendant counterclaimed for payment of the works he had carried out.

The central difficulty for both sides was evidential. Because there was no written agreement, the plaintiff had to establish the terms said to have been breached and to connect the alleged defects and damage to those terms. The court examined the documents before it, which consisted of rough sketches used to guide the works rather than plans prepared by a qualified draftsman, together with invoices and quotations, and found that they did not establish binding terms of the kind the plaintiff needed to prove.

The court emphasised that it is bound by the law of evidence and proof, and that it must decide the case on documents and witness testimony capable of substantiating the parties' respective claims, not on the sentiment of the parties or on the mere fact of damage to the premises and non-payment absent evidence tying those matters to contractual terms. To decide otherwise, the court observed, would be to determine the case on considerations outside the law. On that footing the plaintiff failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities, and the first defendant likewise failed to prove his counterclaim. Both the claim and the counterclaim were dismissed. The judgment is a practical illustration of the evidential burden that falls on parties who transact substantial construction works without a written contract.