JAMILAH BINTI ABU KASSIM @ RAHIM AMIR HASSAN BIN MD ARIF

JAMILAH BINTI ABU KASSIM @ RAHIM AMIR HASSAN BIN MD ARIF

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to give required notice and request for repair within the contractual defect liability period after retention was held and subsequently released; plaintiff also failed to prove defendant's negligence and causation on the balance of probabilities and plaintiff's expert report was not admissible as it did not comply with mandatory rules for expert evidence; therefore no liability for the alleged defects and damages.

Citation
BJ-A72NCvC-8-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
PLANTIF: Jamilah binti Abu Kassim @ Rahim; DEFENDAN: Amir Hassan bin Md Arif
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Case Number
BJ-A72NCvC-8-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Guaman Sivil / Judgment; Appeal Filed (notice of Appeal Filed 9.7.2023)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Defective Workmanship, Defect Liability Period/retention Monies, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Estoppel, Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Construction Evidence Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Defective Workmanship Defect Liability Period/retention Monies Admissibility of Expert Evidence +2 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamilah binti Abu Kassim @ Rahim

PLANTIF

Amir Hassan bin Md Arif

DEFENDAN

Procedural Posture

Guaman Sivil / Judgment; Appeal Filed (notice of Appeal Filed 9.7.2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff can claim for defects after retention money was released and no repair request made during defect liability period
  2. 2 Whether the alleged defects were caused by defendant's negligence in performing contractual obligations
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to RM89,000 in damages

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to give required notice and request for repair within the contractual defect liability period after retention was held and subsequently released; plaintiff also failed to prove defendant's negligence and causation on the balance of probabilities and plaintiff's expert report was not admissible as it did not comply with mandatory rules for expert evidence; therefore no liability for the alleged defects and damages.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs to defendant taxed on scale as per Aturan 59 Kaedah 23 Kaedah‑Kaedah Mahkamah 2012