GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD UNILINK SDN BHD

GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD UNILINK SDN BHD

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to show any triable issue; contractual provisions (clauses 2.1 and 3.2) are clear as a matter of law; documentary admissions, payment records and Defendant's own confirmed construction cost summary estop Defendant from denying liability; counterclaim is not bona fide and does not defeat summary judgment; therefore summary judgment granted for unpaid fees and balance cost saving with contractual interest and costs.

Citation
BA-22C-13-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIFF: GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; DEFENDANT: UNILINK SDN. BHD.; PLAINTIFF (counterclaim): UNILINK SDN. BHD.; DEFENDANT (counterclaim): GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; DEFENDANT (counterclaim): LIM CHIN LONG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Case Number
BA-22C-13-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Decision on Enclosure 9 (summary Judgment)
Outcome
Summary judgment allowed in favour of plaintiff on enclosure 9
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment Under Order 14, Contract Interpretation, Profit Sharing/cost Saving, Contractual Interest, Estoppel, Counterclaim Bona Fides, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Equity (estoppel) Tort (negligence) Summary Judgment Under Order 14 Contract Interpretation Profit Sharing/cost Saving +4 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

PLAINTIFF

UNILINK SDN. BHD.

DEFENDANT

UNILINK SDN. BHD.

PLAINTIFF (counterclaim)

GOLD PRESTIGE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

DEFENDANT (counterclaim)

LIM CHIN LONG

DEFENDANT (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Decision on Enclosure 9 (summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment on unpaid fees (July–Dec 2017)
  2. 2 Whether defendant raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment on balance of cost saving/profit sharing
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of clauses 2.1 and 3.2 of the Letter of Appointment and Extension Letter

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to show any triable issue; contractual provisions (clauses 2.1 and 3.2) are clear as a matter of law; documentary admissions, payment records and Defendant's own confirmed construction cost summary estop Defendant from denying liability; counterclaim is not bona fide and does not defeat summary judgment; therefore summary judgment granted for unpaid fees and balance cost saving with contractual interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment allowed in favour of plaintiff on enclosure 9

Orders

  • Defendant shall pay each sum of the Unpaid Plaintiff's Fees (July-December 2017) with interest at 1.5% per month from the respective due dates until full payment
  • Defendant shall pay the Balance Sum (Plaintiff's Unpaid Cost Saving) of RM4,618,102.17 with interest at 1.5% per month from 12.11.2019 until full settlement