1. ) LBCN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) MUJUR ZAMAN SDN BHD 3. ) LIPUTAN CANGGIH SDN BHD v 1. ) HADRONS CONSULTING SDN BHD 2. ) FOS ADVISORY SERVICES SDN BHD 3. ) HADRONS CAPITAL SDN BHD 4. ) KOAY KANG CHUWAN 5. ) PRASAD RATHINASAMY 6. ) KOAY HAN KERN

Case Significance

Illustrates that where two suits arise from the same contract and are tried together, a coherent set of factual findings determines both — the party whose version prevails wins the affirmative claim and defeats the reciprocal one, which is dismissed with costs.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur is the mirror-image of a consolidated pair of commercial suits and records the dismissal of the counter-directed claim. It 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 this suit, three of the development and related companies were the plaintiffs, suing the consulting company and its associated entities and individuals over the same Consultancy Services and Advisory Agreement dated 12 December 2012 and the payments made under it.

Having heard the two suits together and made its findings on the CSAA and the disputed payments, the court reached opposite conclusions in the two proceedings. It accepted the consulting company's case in the connected suit and entered judgment in its favour there. In this suit, by contrast, the court found no merit in fact or law that was sustainable against the defendants, and it dismissed the claim with costs. The single set of findings on the common agreement therefore supported the consulting company on both sides of the litigation — succeeding as plaintiff in the connected suit and defeating the claim brought against it here.

The court dismissed this suit and fixed a global costs order of RM250,000 across both consolidated suits, including the interlocutory applications in the connected suit, payable by the defendant companies within sixty days, subject to allocator. Read with its companion, the judgment illustrates that where two suits arise from the same contract and are tried together, a coherent set of factual findings will ordinarily determine both, so that the party whose version prevails wins the affirmative claim and defeats the reciprocal one.