HADRONS CONSULTING SDN. BHD. v 1. ) LBCN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) BERKAT GAGAH SDN. BHD. 3. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN. BHD. 4. ) BENTAYAN PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 5. ) LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN. BHD. 6. ) TETUAN ABRAHAM OOI & PARTNERS PENCELAH 1. ) K&A Capital Sdn Bhd 2. ) K&A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 3. ) Ringgit Exotika Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates the management of intertwined commercial claims through consolidation: the court resolves the common factual questions once, enters judgment for the party whose account of the disputed agreement it accepts, and dismisses the mirror-image claim, reflecting the result in a single global costs order.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, the first of two consolidated suits, arose from consolidated commercial suits tried together, both concerning the veracity and effect of contractual payments under a Consultancy Services and Advisory Agreement dated 12 December 2012 (the CSAA). In Suit 215 a consulting company sued a group of development and related companies (and a law firm) over those payments; in Suit 227 three of those companies sued the consulting company and associated parties in the opposite direction. Because the disputes were intertwined and the documents common, the court heard the two suits together and delivered a single judgment resolving both.

In Suit 215 the court ruled in favour of the consulting company after a full trial and entered final judgment against the defendants. Among the orders made, it recognised the parties' respective positions as stakeholders of the stakeholder and co-mingled accounts under the relevant settlement arrangement, gave the consulting company liberty to apply for consequential orders to compel compliance with the orders made, and ordered costs against the defendant companies in favour of the consulting company. The court's findings on the CSAA and the associated payments underpinned the judgment it entered in the consulting company's favour.

Dealing with both suits together, the court entered judgment for the consulting company in Suit 215 and, correspondingly, found no merit in fact or law in the opposing Suit 227, which it dismissed. It fixed a global costs order of RM250,000 for both suits, including the interlocutory applications in Suit 215, payable by the defendant companies within sixty days, subject to allocator. The judgment illustrates how a court manages intertwined commercial claims by consolidating them, resolving the common factual questions once, and reflecting the outcome in a single costs order — vindicating the party whose account of the disputed agreement it accepts while dismissing the mirror-image claim.