ZENETAC GROUP SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya CLASSIC KANCIL SDN BHD) SAS LITEMETRIC JV SDN. BHD.

ZENETAC GROUP SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya CLASSIC KANCIL SDN BHD) SAS LITEMETRIC JV SDN. BHD.

Defendant failed to prove the contractual breaches alleged as basis for termination: delays were principally caused by third‑party DSR confirmations outside Plaintiff's control, no prior notices or warnings were shown, and Stop Work Orders did not establish liability or penalties on Plaintiff; accordingly termination dated 13.8.2018 was unlawful and Plaintiff was entitled to proven outstanding contract work, unlawful deductions returned, and loss of profits, while Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Citation
BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: Zenetac Group Sdn Bhd; Defendan: SAS Litemetric JV Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Case Number
BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Breach of Contract, Variation Orders, Loss of Profits, Stop Work Order, Retention Sums, Counterclaim
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Remedies Termination of Contract Breach of Contract Variation Orders Loss of Profits +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zenetac Group Sdn Bhd

Plaintif

SAS Litemetric JV Sdn Bhd

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant validly terminated Plaintiff's subcontract
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff is entitled to outstanding payments and damages for loss of profits
  3. 3 Whether Defendant's counterclaim for alleged overpayments and defective/non‑specification materials is valid

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to prove the contractual breaches alleged as basis for termination: delays were principally caused by third‑party DSR confirmations outside Plaintiff's control, no prior notices or warnings were shown, and Stop Work Orders did not establish liability or penalties on Plaintiff; accordingly termination dated 13.8.2018 was unlawful and Plaintiff was entitled to proven outstanding contract work, unlawful deductions returned, and loss of profits, while Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Termination of Plaintiff's contract on 13.8.2018 declared invalid
  • Defendant shall pay Plaintiff RM751,763.14