CKY INTERIOR SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 821925-H) TREAL TECH SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1257364-H)

CKY INTERIOR SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 821925-H) TREAL TECH SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1257364-H)

High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in failing to evaluate evidence that the plaintiff contributed to delay and that the defendant had substantially performed (approx. 97.25%) with only minor defects within DLP; there was no total failure of consideration and plaintiff's termination was wrongful; appellant entitled to unpaid contract balance of RM145,248.75 and appeal accordingly allowed in that respect.

Citation
WA-12BNCVC-91-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: CKY INTERIOR SDN. BHD.; Respondent / Plaintiff: TREAL TECH SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Case Number
WA-12BNCVC-91-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (interior Fit Out) / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside to extent inconsistent with High Court findings; appellant's appeal allowed in respect of counterclaim for unpaid works; other claims for general damages by appellant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Termination, Total Failure of Consideration, Substantial Performance, Damages, Variation Orders, Defect Liability Period, Appellate Intervention
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Building and Construction Law Remedies Breach of Contract Termination Total Failure of Consideration Substantial Performance +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CKY INTERIOR SDN. BHD.

Appellant / Defendant

TREAL TECH SDN. BHD.

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (interior Fit Out) / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant repudiated the contract by failing to hand over premises on agreed date
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff contributed to delay and thus wrongful to terminate
  3. 3 Whether there was a total failure of consideration permitting rescission/termination

Ratio Decidendi

High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in failing to evaluate evidence that the plaintiff contributed to delay and that the defendant had substantially performed (approx. 97.25%) with only minor defects within DLP; there was no total failure of consideration and plaintiff's termination was wrongful; appellant entitled to unpaid contract balance of RM145,248.75 and appeal accordingly allowed in that respect.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside to extent inconsistent with High Court findings; appellant's appeal allowed in respect of counterclaim for unpaid works; other claims for general damages by appellant dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside parts of Sessions Court judgment that found defendant solely liable for breach and that upheld plaintiff's claims for contractor replacement and furniture costs
  • Allow appellant's counterclaim and award RM145248.75 to appellant (defendant) against respondent (plaintiff)