FEC Cables (M) Sdn Bhd Festech Sdn Bhd

FEC Cables (M) Sdn Bhd Festech Sdn Bhd

ETA denotes estimated dates so time was not of the essence; even if time were of the essence only unperformed portions could be avoided; defendant never gave notice of intention to claim compensation for delay; plaintiff completed the relevant portions and limited claim to 80% therefore summary judgment was appropriate.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-963-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: FESTECH SDN BHD; Defendant: FEC CABLES SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-963-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Unpaid Invoices Summary Judgment / High Court Judgment Allowing Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Application; Defendant Appealed to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summary judgment allowed in favour of the Plaintiff as amended to 80% of the claimed amount
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Time Is of the Essence, Breach of Contract, Damages, Testing and Commissioning, Retention Sum, Delivery Order, Payment Terms
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Time Is of the Essence Breach of Contract Damages Testing and Commissioning Retention Sum +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FESTECH SDN BHD

Plaintiff

FEC CABLES SDN BHD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Unpaid Invoices Summary Judgment / High Court Judgment Allowing Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Application; Defendant Appealed to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract dates (ETA) made time of the essence
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to payment despite alleged delay
  3. 3 Whether defendant can claim damages for delay

Ratio Decidendi

ETA denotes estimated dates so time was not of the essence; even if time were of the essence only unperformed portions could be avoided; defendant never gave notice of intention to claim compensation for delay; plaintiff completed the relevant portions and limited claim to 80% therefore summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment allowed in favour of the Plaintiff as amended to 80% of the claimed amount

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for 80% of the claimed amount as amended
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff (amount and assessment not specified in reasons)