PACKAGING SALES & SERVICE (M) SDN BHD KEJURUTERAAN PAKAT PERKASA SDN BHD

PACKAGING SALES & SERVICE (M) SDN BHD KEJURUTERAAN PAKAT PERKASA SDN BHD

Time remained of the essence; the first extension was agreed but subsequent proposed draft extensions were not accepted by the Plaintiff so no further agreed extension existed; delays after June 2020 were not excused by COVID‑19 and were not caused by the Defendant; therefore the Defendant validly terminated under s56(1) Contracts Act 1950 and is entitled to recovery of the full deposit; the Sessions Court erred in allowing only 20% repayment.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Packaging Sales & Service (M) Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Kejuruteraan Pakat Perkasa Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court) / Appellate Judgment on Cross Appeal From Sessions Court After Full Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Time Is of the Essence, Extension of Time, Repudiation, Deposit Refund, Force Majeure (covid 19), Waiver and Affirmation of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Termination of Contract Time Is of the Essence Extension of Time Repudiation Deposit Refund +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Packaging Sales & Service (M) Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Kejuruteraan Pakat Perkasa Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court) / Appellate Judgment on Cross Appeal From Sessions Court After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent validly terminated the contract
  2. 2 Whether time was of the essence
  3. 3 Whether extensions of time were granted and accepted and their effect

Ratio Decidendi

Time remained of the essence; the first extension was agreed but subsequent proposed draft extensions were not accepted by the Plaintiff so no further agreed extension existed; delays after June 2020 were not excused by COVID‑19 and were not caused by the Defendant; therefore the Defendant validly terminated under s56(1) Contracts Act 1950 and is entitled to recovery of the full deposit; the Sessions Court erred in allowing only 20% repayment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Cross‑appeal allowed: Appellant to repay full deposit of MYR 203724.8 to Respondent.
  • Appeal dismissed.