BRIEF FACTS:

• In 2009, JKR Terengganu awarded a project to Indah Sebati Sdn Bhd (ISBB) in which the appellant (“Hasina”) was an investor.
  
  
• ISBB’s contract was terminated in 2013 which led to a legal action against JKR Terengganu.
  
  
• ISSB lacked funds for legal representation, so Hasina introduced ISSB to the respondent’s law firm (“Tetuan Rajinder & Goh”) and stepped in to fund the litigation by paying their fees.
  
  
• Hasina then claimed that there was a verbal agreement in 2014 which was then later documented in a letter dated 29.09.2017 (“the Agreement”), whereby Tetuan Rajinder & Goh undertook to pay Hasina 15% of the judgment sum if the case was successful.
  
  
• ISSB won the case receiving RM5,130,537.60 and Tetuan Rajinder & Goh were paid their legal fees but they had refused to honour their undertaking to Hasina.
  
  
• Tetuan Rajinder & Goh states that Hasina had already successfully sued ISSB directly and was awarded RM1,250,000.00 as a return of her investment hence Tetuan Rajinder & Goh claims that Hasina’s current claim amounts to unjust enrichment as she is attempting to profit twice from the same matter.
  
  
• Hasina then sued Tetuan Rajinder & Goh.

THE DECISION OF THE SESSIONS COURT (SC)

• Firstly, the SC dismissed Hasina’s claim on the basis that there was no evidence of a verbal agreement between Hasina and Tetuan Rajinder & Goh.
  
  
• The SC found that the Agreement was signed under duress after threats and harassment and that there was no valid consideration for the undertaking.
  
  
• The SC held that the undertaking by Tetuan Rajinder & Go was void and unenforceable and that Hasina’s claim amounted to unjust enrichment as she attempted to profit twice from the same matter.
  
  
• Hasina was dissatisfied with the judgment and as such had appealed against the decision of the SC.

THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC held that the Agreement was a valid contract where Hasina had funded the legal fees in exchange for a share of the judgment sum.
  
  
• The HC was of the view that Hasina’s payment of RM80,000.00 constituted sufficient consideration for Tetuan Rajinder & Goh’s undertaking.
  
  
• The HC further states that the claim for duress by Tetuan Rajinder & Goh was not supported by evidence as no police reports or direct testimony to corroborate the coercion allegations.
  
  
• The HC held that the arrangement made between Hasina and Tetuan Rajinder & Goh was not touting but a legitimate business agreement as Hasina had a financial stake in ISSB and was not merely referring client for commission.
  
  
• The HC was of the view that allowing Tetuan Rajinder & Goh to retain the full benefit while avoiding their contractual obligation would result in unjust enrichment.
  
  
• The HC had ordered for Tetuan Rajinder & Goh to fulfill their obligations and pay Hasina her rightful share.