PRISTAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. SUCCESS INPUT SDN BHD

PRISTAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. SUCCESS INPUT SDN BHD

The appeals by Success Input relating to the two tranches of the retention sum are allowed because the trial judge erred in fact and in judicial appreciation: no defect list was served within the relevant period for the first tranche and the architect failed to specify defects or facilitate joint inspection for the second tranche, so withholding was unjustified; the Sessions Court’s dismissal of Success Input’s claims on those bases was set aside. The Sessions Court’s strike out of Pristar’s separate suit for third‑party rectification costs on res judicata/abuse of process grounds was upheld.

Citation
AA-12BNCvC-8-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/respondent: PRISTAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; Appellant/respondent: SUCCESS INPUT SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 May 2024
Case Number
AA-12BNCvC-8-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Consolidated Appeals From Sessions Court After Full Trial
Outcome
Allowed appeals by Success Input (AA-12BNCVC-9-11/2022 and AA-12BNCVC-10-11/2022); dismissed appeals by Pristar (AA-12BNCVC-8-11/2022 and AA-12A-27-10/2021).
Legal Topics
Retention Sum, Defect Liability Period, Rectification Works, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Construction Law Retention Sum Defect Liability Period Rectification Works Res Judicata Abuse of Process +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRISTAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Appellant/respondent

SUCCESS INPUT SDN BHD

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Consolidated Appeals From Sessions Court After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent (Success Input) is entitled to release of retention sums (first and second tranches) under the construction contract
  2. 2 Whether Success Input completed rectification/CCTV works to the satisfaction of the Architect/Engineer and IWK
  3. 3 Whether Pristar was justified in withholding retention sum under contract clauses

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals by Success Input relating to the two tranches of the retention sum are allowed because the trial judge erred in fact and in judicial appreciation: no defect list was served within the relevant period for the first tranche and the architect failed to specify defects or facilitate joint inspection for the second tranche, so withholding was unjustified; the Sessions Court’s dismissal of Success Input’s claims on those bases was set aside. The Sessions Court’s strike out of Pristar’s separate suit for third‑party rectification costs on res judicata/abuse of process grounds was upheld.

Court Disposition

Allowed appeals by Success Input (AA-12BNCVC-9-11/2022 and AA-12BNCVC-10-11/2022); dismissed appeals by Pristar (AA-12BNCVC-8-11/2022 and AA-12A-27-10/2021).

Orders

  • Allow Civil Appeals No. AA-12BNCVC-9-11/2022 and AA-12BNCVC-10-11/2022 in favour of Success Input
  • Dismiss Civil Appeals No. AA-12BNCVC-8-11/2022 and AA-12A-27-10/2021 filed by Pristar Housing Development Sdn Bhd