Benarel International Sdn Bhd v Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Benarel International Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia
• Ketua Pengarah Jab. Imigresen Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin

• The appellant proposed the REGISTA system for foreign worker identification and conducted two Proof of Concept (POC) demonstrations, explicitly on a no-cost basis to the respondents.
• After the POCs, the appellant claimed it was requested by officers of the second respondent to perform "ad hoc services" involving data processing and analysis of foreign nationals, for which it sought payment of RM67,909,169.20.
• The respondents refused payment, leading to litigation, and the project was subsequently terminated by the first respondent, with an explicit waiver of the Government's financial liability for costs incurred.

• Whether the High Court erred in law and/or fact by not allowing the appellant's *quantum meruit* claim for the ad hoc work.
• Whether the High Court erred in law and/or fact in finding that there was no contractual agreement between the parties concerning the ad hoc services.
• Whether the High Court erred in law and/or fact in finding that the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the quantum of data processed and the agreed rates.

• The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision, finding no appealable errors meriting appellate intervention.
• The Court held that the *quantum meruit* claim was not pleaded or pursued at trial, and even if considered, the appellant failed to establish the essential conditions under Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950, particularly that the act was not gratuitous and the respondents enjoyed a substantive benefit.
• The Court found no error in the High Court's conclusion that there was no valid contractual agreement for the ad hoc services, as the officers who allegedly agreed to rates lacked authority to bind the Government, and the project's termination explicitly protected the Government from financial liability.