C&S ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SDN BHD KAVANAS SDN BHD

C&S ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SDN BHD KAVANAS SDN BHD

Although the QS admitted he did not rationalise rates, the failure was inconsequential because the valuation did not involve items with material quantity changes and any front-loading would have been beneficial to the contractor; the respondent's counterclaim was substantiated by photographs, consultant instructions and a quotation but unrelated items in the quotation were disallowed, leading the High Court to reduce the rectification award from RM124,000.00 to RM86,000.00 and otherwise uphold the Sessions Court judgment.

Citation
WA-12BC-10-09/20219 & WA-B52C-31-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: C & S ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SDN BHD; Respondent/defendant: KAVANAS SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
WA-12BC-10-09/20219 & WA-B52C-31-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; paragraph (a) of the Sessions Court judgment varied to RM86,000.00; no order as to costs of the appeal; rest of the Sessions Court judgment maintained.
Legal Topics
Construction Contract, Contract Termination, Valuation by Quantity Surveyor, Rationalisation of Bills of Quantities, Overpayment, Defect Rectification, Counterclaim, Costs and Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Construction Contract Contract Termination Valuation by Quantity Surveyor Rationalisation of Bills of Quantities Overpayment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C & S ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

KAVANAS SDN BHD

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointed quantity surveyor breached the parties' agreement by failing to rationalise the rates in the bills of quantities and whether that vitiated the valuation
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's counterclaim for defect rectification is provable and payable despite lack of proof of payment to a rectification contractor
  3. 3 Whether items in the rectification quotation unrelated to required works should be disallowed and the award reduced

Ratio Decidendi

Although the QS admitted he did not rationalise rates, the failure was inconsequential because the valuation did not involve items with material quantity changes and any front-loading would have been beneficial to the contractor; the respondent's counterclaim was substantiated by photographs, consultant instructions and a quotation but unrelated items in the quotation were disallowed, leading the High Court to reduce the rectification award from RM124,000.00 to RM86,000.00 and otherwise uphold the Sessions Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; paragraph (a) of the Sessions Court judgment varied to RM86,000.00; no order as to costs of the appeal; rest of the Sessions Court judgment maintained.

Orders

  • Paragraph (a) of the Sessions Court judgment varied to RM86,000.00
  • No order as to costs of the appeal