PSI INCONTROL SDN BHD (NO.SYARIKAT 414225-K) IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (NO. SYARIKAT 993425-W)

PSI INCONTROL SDN BHD (NO.SYARIKAT 414225-K) IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (NO. SYARIKAT 993425-W)

The Court held that EOT No.1 was validly granted under Clause 49, the appellant gave timely notice under Clause 50.1 and submitted sufficient particulars under Clause 50.2 (letter 17.4.2012 and annexures), the respondent could not lawfully impose a blanket refusal to entertain claims after granting EOT, and therefore the appellant was entitled to judgment for RM7,736,145.00 together with interest and costs.

Citation
W-02(NCVC)(W)-2168-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: PSI Incontrol Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Ircon International Limited
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 July 2021
Case Number
W-02(NCVC)(W)-2168-11/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (construction Contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision varied in part and judgment entered for Appellant
Legal Topics
Extension of Time (eot), Conditions Precedent, Claims for Loss and Expense, Notice Requirements, Admissibility of Agreed Documents
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time (eot) Conditions Precedent Claims for Loss and Expense Notice Requirements Admissibility of Agreed Documents

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PSI Incontrol Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Ircon International Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (construction Contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Extension of Time granted under Clause 49 of the contract entitles the subcontractor to claim loss and expense under Clause 49.2
  2. 2 Whether the subcontractor complied with contractual notice and particulars requirements in Clauses 50.1 and 50.2
  3. 3 Whether the main contractor could lawfully impose a blanket refusal of compensation when granting an EOT

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that EOT No.1 was validly granted under Clause 49, the appellant gave timely notice under Clause 50.1 and submitted sufficient particulars under Clause 50.2 (letter 17.4.2012 and annexures), the respondent could not lawfully impose a blanket refusal to entertain claims after granting EOT, and therefore the appellant was entitled to judgment for RM7,736,145.00 together with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision varied in part and judgment entered for Appellant

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Appellant in the sum of RM7,736,145.00
  • Interest at 4% per annum from date of Writ on RM7,736,145.00