BD ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (NO SYARIKAT: 418648-V) CHEW CHOO MENG SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 306036-T)

BD ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (NO SYARIKAT: 418648-V) CHEW CHOO MENG SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 306036-T)

The appeal was allowed because the respondent failed to prove the existence and completion of the alleged variation orders and the valuation of additional works claimed; contemporaneous certified documents showed only a net additional value of RM11,400.81 and an assessed certified amount inconsistent with the inflated claim; corroborative matters (non-response to demand, employer payments, auditor confirmation) were insufficient to prove the pleaded case; adverse inferences were unjustified absent evidence of withholding; therefore the Sessions Court's finding in favour of the respondent could not stand.

Citation
PA-12BNCVC-16-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Chew Choo Meng Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent: BD Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
PA-12BNCVC-16-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Variation Orders, Quantum of Claim, Estoppel, Adverse Inference (s114), Burden of Proof, Certification and Final Measurement, Audit Confirmation as Admission
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Evidence Law Limitation Law Variation Orders Quantum of Claim Estoppel Adverse Inference (s114) +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chew Choo Meng Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant

BD Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved existence and completion of variation orders for net additional works of RM609,676.09
  2. 2 Whether contemporaneous certified claim summaries estopped the respondent from claiming a higher sum
  3. 3 Whether the claim was time-barred by limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the respondent failed to prove the existence and completion of the alleged variation orders and the valuation of additional works claimed; contemporaneous certified documents showed only a net additional value of RM11,400.81 and an assessed certified amount inconsistent with the inflated claim; corroborative matters (non-response to demand, employer payments, auditor confirmation) were insufficient to prove the pleaded case; adverse inferences were unjustified absent evidence of withholding; therefore the Sessions Court's finding in favour of the respondent could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Sessions Court judgment set aside