G.C.S FURNISHING SDN BHD MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD

G.C.S FURNISHING SDN BHD MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD

The High Court held the Magistrate erred by failing to give proper judicial appreciation to contemporaneous documents and testimony. On the balance of probabilities the respondent failed to prove a valid force majeure event or entitlement to EOT because the extension letters lacked the requisite independent opinion by the proper certifier and TNB letters did not corroborate nationwide shortages or administrative procedural causes. The delay was attributable to the respondent's own failures; therefore the appellant was entitled to LAD and the Magistrate's decision was set aside.

Citation
JA-11BNCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: G.C.S. Furnishing Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 December 2024
Case Number
JA-11BNCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Magistrate / High Court (appeal From Magistrate)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Magistrate's judgment dated 08.06.2023 set aside; Plaintiff's claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Force Majeure, Extension of Time (eot), Vacant Possession, Judicial Appreciation of Evidence, Hearsay and Adverse Inference
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Evidence Law Property Law Liquidated Ascertained Damages Force Majeure Extension of Time (eot) Vacant Possession +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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.C.S. Furnishing Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Magistrate / High Court (appeal From Magistrate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the developer (respondent) validly relied on clause 20 (force majeure) to avoid liability for LAD
  2. 2 Whether extension of time letters and engineer/architect opinions satisfied the contractual requirement for an opinion under clause 20.1
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate failed to undertake sufficient judicial appreciation of contemporaneous documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Magistrate erred by failing to give proper judicial appreciation to contemporaneous documents and testimony. On the balance of probabilities the respondent failed to prove a valid force majeure event or entitlement to EOT because the extension letters lacked the requisite independent opinion by the proper certifier and TNB letters did not corroborate nationwide shortages or administrative procedural causes. The delay was attributable to the respondent's own failures; therefore the appellant was entitled to LAD and the Magistrate's decision was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Magistrate's judgment dated 08.06.2023 set aside; Plaintiff's claim allowed.

Orders

  • Set aside the decision of the Magistrate dated 08.06.2023
  • Allow the Plaintiff's claim as per Writ and Statement of Claim