MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MAC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SDN BHD 2. ) KUDDUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MAC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SDN BHD 2. ) KUDDUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that D1 knew of D2's winding‑up, failed to disclose that material fact to the adjudicator and plaintiff, acted in concert with D2 to pursue and release the adjudication only after the winding‑up order was revoked, and thus conspired to defraud/injure the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-221-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD; First Defendant: MAC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SDN BHD; Second Defendant: KUDDUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 August 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-221-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Tort (conspiracy to Defraud) Involving CIPAA Adjudication / Judgment After Full Trial (appeal Filed by First Defendant)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the First Defendant; final judgment previously entered against the Second Defendant for failure to appear; appeal by First Defendant noted.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Duty to Disclose Insolvency, Champerty and Contingency Fees, Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision
Tort Construction Law Insolvency Law Adjudication (cipaa) Conspiracy to Defraud Duty to Disclose Insolvency Champerty and Contingency Fees Enforcement and Setting Aside of Adjudication Decision

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MAC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SDN BHD

First Defendant

KUDDUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Tort (conspiracy to Defraud) Involving CIPAA Adjudication / Judgment After Full Trial (appeal Filed by First Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 knew D2 was wound up during the adjudication proceeding
  2. 2 Whether D1, as claim consultant, had a duty to inform the plaintiff and the adjudicator of D2's winding up status
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for conspiracy to defraud against D1

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that D1 knew of D2's winding‑up, failed to disclose that material fact to the adjudicator and plaintiff, acted in concert with D2 to pursue and release the adjudication only after the winding‑up order was revoked, and thus conspired to defraud/injure the plaintiff; accordingly plaintiff's claim succeeds and orders follow.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the First Defendant; final judgment previously entered against the Second Defendant for failure to appear; appeal by First Defendant noted.

Orders

  • Prayer 30(i)(a) dismissed
  • Prayer 30(i)(b)(a-b) allowed; damages to be assessed