CORSA TECH SDN. BHD. 1. YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD. & 2 LAGI

CORSA TECH SDN. BHD. 1. YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD. & 2 LAGI

Successor judge validly continued the part‑heard trial under O35 r11; absence of a speaking judgment does not automatically invalidate outcome but requires appellate scrutiny of the record; consultants appointed by the employer did not owe a duty of care to the contractor in the circumstances because policy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-12BC-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: CORSA TECH SDN. BHD.; 1st Respondent: YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD.; 2nd Respondent: ASIMA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.; 3rd Respondent: JUBM SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 July 2021
Case Number
BA-12BC-8-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From the Sessions Court / High Court Hearing on Appeal After Trial (part‑heard Trial Continuation Issue)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to 2nd and 3rd respondents; appeal partially allowed against 1st respondent
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages, Termination and Affirmation of Contract, Payment Certificates and Interim Payments, Duty of Care of Consultants, Speaking Judgment Requirement, Continuation of Part‑heard Trials, Building Permits and Legality of Works, Estoppel, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act, Costs on Appeal and Reassessment
Contract Law Construction Law Tort Negligence Evidence Law Administrative/planning Law Civil Procedure Liquidated Damages Termination and Affirmation of Contract +8 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 9 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CORSA TECH SDN. BHD.

Appellant

YTB IMPRESSION SDN. BHD.

1st Respondent

ASIMA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.

2nd Respondent

JUBM SDN. BHD.

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From the Sessions Court / High Court Hearing on Appeal After Trial (part‑heard Trial Continuation Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a nominated judge may continue a part‑heard trial under O 35 r 11 Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether the successor judge was required to deliver a reasoned/speaking grounds of judgment and consequences if not
  3. 3 Whether s 114(e) Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of regular performance of judicial acts or is rebuttable

Ratio Decidendi

Successor judge validly continued the part‑heard trial under O35 r11; absence of a speaking judgment does not automatically invalidate outcome but requires appellate scrutiny of the record; consultants appointed by the employer did not owe a duty of care to the contractor in the circumstances because policy considerations negated prima facie duties; local authority permit being granted after commencement did not render contract or CNC invalid; appellant was in breach for failing to complete works and liable to liquidated damages under Clause 5 and s75 CA (Cubic Electronics burden allocation); however appellant was entitled to payment for works performed as valued (RM686,412.29) and net...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to 2nd and 3rd respondents; appeal partially allowed against 1st respondent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed against 2nd and 3rd Respondents; Plaintiff to pay costs of RM20,000.00 to each of 2nd and 3rd Respondents with interest at 5% per annum from date of Oral Decision until full payment
  • SC's judgment dismissing Original Action against 1st Respondent (with costs RM30,000 to 1st Respondent) set aside