UFT STRUCTURE RE-ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. [ BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 442709-A ] RI CHANG CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. [ BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 1299858-X ]

UFT STRUCTURE RE-ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. [ BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 442709-A ] RI CHANG CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. [ BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 1299858-X ]

Defendant established triable issues concerning whether contractual conditions precedent (consulting engineer approval and site acceptance) were fulfilled and whether documentary evidence constituted approval or admission, therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed; the matter must proceed to trial.

Citation
JA-A72C-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: UFT Structure Re-Engineering Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Ri Chang Construction Sdn. Bhd.
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2020
Case Number
JA-A72C-4-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / Inter Partes Summary Judgment Application (order 14) Dismissed
Outcome
Plaintiff's summary judgment application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Condition Precedent, Completion and Site Acceptance, Professional Engineer Endorsement, Payment Disputes
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Summary Judgment Condition Precedent Completion and Site Acceptance Professional Engineer Endorsement Payment Disputes

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UFT Structure Re-Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Ri Chang Construction Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / Inter Partes Summary Judgment Application (order 14) Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff complied with clause 3.4.2 requiring approval from consulting engineer (JRK)
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff complied with clause 3.4.3 requiring completion and site acceptance report
  3. 3 Whether the email from JRK and cheque P5 constitute approval or admission of completion

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant established triable issues concerning whether contractual conditions precedent (consulting engineer approval and site acceptance) were fulfilled and whether documentary evidence constituted approval or admission, therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed; the matter must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summary judgment application dismissed

Orders

  • Application (Enclosure 6) dismissed
  • Matter to proceed to trial