JBS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v RAIHANAH COLD STORAGE SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Illustrates the disposal of a documented cross-border supply claim by Order 14 summary judgment and the limits of a preliminary objection founded only on procedural non-compliance with the Rules of Court.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 by an overseas supplier against a Malaysian buyer arising from a supply relationship. The plaintiff, JBS Australia Pty Limited, sought final judgment against the defendant, Raihanah Cold Storage Sdn Bhd, for a series of special-damages heads flowing from the defendant's alleged default under their supply arrangement. The trading relationship, facilitated by a third company, was formalised in September 2023 when the defendant signed the plaintiff's New Customer Form and agreed to be bound by the plaintiff's standard terms, under which the defendant was to purchase goods at the prices and specifications set out in each sales confirmation or invoice; goods were then supplied at the defendant's request between November 2023 and June 2024. The sums claimed included resale losses of US$146,981.05, further special damages of RM674,004.48 for handling, detention, storage and transport, additional travel and logistics costs, and late-payment interest of US$40,029.90 computed at 12% per annum with a continuing daily accrual until full settlement. The defendant raised a preliminary objection going to the court's jurisdiction, founded on alleged non-compliance with the Rules of Court. The court, per Manira Mohd Nor JC, held that a preliminary objection based solely on non-compliance with the Rules cannot succeed unless the application is made within a reasonable time and before the objecting party has taken any fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity, and unless the non-compliance has caused a substantial miscarriage of justice or irreparable prejudice not curable by amendment or costs. It found the jurisdictional objection to be an afterthought and a means of delaying the trial of the case, and concluded that none of the issues raised by the defendant were triable. The court accordingly allowed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the defendant with costs of RM3,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of the disposal of a documented cross-border supply claim by summary judgment and of the limits of a preliminary objection founded only on procedural non-compliance.