ISTAY HOTEL MACALISTER SDN BHD TARGET STYLE SDN BHD

ISTAY HOTEL MACALISTER SDN BHD TARGET STYLE SDN BHD

There was a binding contract to renovate but the Sessions Court erred in finding P4 was the agreed contract sum; evidence showed D16 and an agreed ceiling of RM400,000. Quantum meruit did not apply because there was an existing contract and the claim was not properly pleaded nor supported by invoices. The Sessions Court also misdirected by ignoring pleadings and evidence on the council application and repair costs. Appeal allowed in part; SC judgment set aside; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant specified costs and repairs with interest and costs.

Citation
PA-12BNCC-5-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu (appellant): ISTAY HOTEL MACALISTER SDN BHD; Responden: TARGET STYLE SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
PA-12BNCC-5-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (from Sessions Court) / High Court Hearing on Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decision of Sessions Court set aside in part.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Breach of Contract, Variation of Contract, Formation of Contract, Appellate Review, Damages, Municipal Licensing/permits
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Quantum Meruit Breach of Contract Variation of Contract Formation of Contract +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ISTAY HOTEL MACALISTER SDN BHD

Perayu (appellant)

TARGET STYLE SDN BHD

Responden

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (from Sessions Court) / High Court Hearing on Appeal; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract sum was P4 or earlier agreed D16 with a ceiling of RM400,000
  2. 2 Whether quantum meruit applied given an existing contract and insufficient pleading/proof
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff proved variation/additional works and produced invoices/bills

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding contract to renovate but the Sessions Court erred in finding P4 was the agreed contract sum; evidence showed D16 and an agreed ceiling of RM400,000. Quantum meruit did not apply because there was an existing contract and the claim was not properly pleaded nor supported by invoices. The Sessions Court also misdirected by ignoring pleadings and evidence on the council application and repair costs. Appeal allowed in part; SC judgment set aside; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant specified costs and repairs with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decision of Sessions Court set aside in part.

Orders

  • Set aside the Sessions Court judgment insofar as it allowed plaintiff’s claim for RM105,000.00
  • Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant RM38,360.00 for the fresh application to the City Council