Court Case Updates

COURT CASE UPDATE 11th April 2026

February 2020 – March 2026.

After six long years of litigation, the case has finally come to an end.

The story is quite straightforward.

My client received an order for 300 steel brackets. The buyer provided technical drawings clearly stating “Grade S275”, which in industry standards means mild steel.

Based on those specifications, my client purchased the materials, manufactured the brackets, and delivered 120 units.

Then the problem started.

The buyer suddenly refused to accept the goods.

They claimed the brackets should have been made from high-tensile steel, not mild steel.

But the first drawing they sent contained no indication of high tensile steel. There was no fishbone mark and no grade 460–500 specification. The only grade stated was S275.

Later, they produced a second drawing.

When both drawings were compared in court, there were 9 significant differences in measurements and specifications.

What happened next was even more surprising.

The buyer kept the 120 brackets already delivered, hired another contractor, and modified them using completely different measurements — 520mm x 925mm x 200mm, instead of the original 200mm x100mm×100mm.

In other words:

They used the goods, modified them, but refused to pay. And dragged the case in the name of technicalities.

The courts saw through it.

Court decisions:

Magistrate’s Court – Our client’s claim allowed, Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed

High Court – Defendant’s Appeal dismissed with costs RM8,000

 Court of Appeal – Defendant’s Leave application dismissed with RM30,000 costs

#courtofappeal #civillitigation #breachofcontract #contractlaw