THYSSNKRUPP ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN BHD ASAL BINA SDN BHD

THYSSNKRUPP ELEVATOR MALAYSIA SDN BHD ASAL BINA SDN BHD

High Court affirmed Sessions Court: defendant liable for LAD because defendant failed to prove water ingress and did not satisfy strict statutory requirements for admission of Part C documents under Evidence Act ss32/73A; no practical completion (no CPC and conditional handover) so balance contract sum claim fails;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-12BNCVC-83-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Thyssenkrupp Elevator Malaysia Sdn Bhd; Respondent Plaintiff: Asal Bina Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Case Number
BA-12BNCVC-83-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court) / Appeal From Sessions Court (re Hearing Under S29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964)
Legal Topics
Liquidated and Ascertained Damages, Admissibility of Part C Documents/hearsay, Practical Completion and CPC, Variation Orders and Approval, Defect Liability Period, Competency of Cross Appeal
Contract Law Construction Law Evidence Civil Procedure Liquidated and Ascertained Damages Admissibility of Part C Documents/hearsay Practical Completion and CPC Variation Orders and Approval +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thyssenkrupp Elevator Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Appellant Defendant

Asal Bina Sdn Bhd

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court) / Appeal From Sessions Court (re Hearing Under S29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant liable for liquidated and ascertained damages for delay and whether water ingress defence was proven
  2. 2 Whether IDD documents in Part C admissible under Evidence Act 1950 s32(1)(b) or s73A
  3. 3 Whether works achieved practical completion such that defendant entitled to balance contract sum without CPC

Ratio Decidendi

High Court affirmed Sessions Court: defendant liable for LAD because defendant failed to prove water ingress and did not satisfy strict statutory requirements for admission of Part C documents under Evidence Act ss32/73A; no practical completion (no CPC and conditional handover) so balance contract sum claim fails; variation orders unauthorized by main contractor and unsupported by evidence; plaintiff’s third party contractor costs unproven; plaintiff’s purported cross-appeal was procedurally incompetent but merits also failed.