Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Backcharges

  • 13 Sept 2024

    MAHKOTA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD AFRIMA CONSULTING ENGINEER SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-22C-53-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22C-53-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant breached the LOA in respect of PMC or erection works and failed to establish the specific works and costs for backcharges; evidence established that delay was attributable to defective materials supplied by the Plaintiff (via Zelleco) and not Defendant; non‑pleaded reliance on the RFP could not be admitted; no evidence of unresolved defects at termination; therefore Plaintiff’s claims dismissed and Defendant’s counterclaims for proved items allowed, with net award.

  • 25 Jun 2024

    Bolt Industries Sdn Bhd Itramas Re Services Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    BA-12BC-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12BC-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Court found Defendant proved entitlement to deduct RM42,930 for the 53 damaged PV modules (admitted by Plaintiff) but failed to prove entitlement to deduct RM54,351.12 as liquidated damages and RM18,800 as third‑party completion costs; delay was attributable to Defendant so LAD was not payable; Defendant had not shown actual payment to third party or that Plaintiff had been paid for those missing works; hence Plaintiff entitled to recover RM73,151.12 (RM54,351.12 + RM18,800.00) with 5% interest from 20.7.2019; costs to be borne by parties themselves.

  • 12 Jan 2024

    KAYANGAN KEMAS SDN BHD KAY CORPORATION SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-22C-50-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22C-50-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Clause 2 of the LOA incorporated the Main Contract so KC was bound by its terms; variation claims under a lump sum subcontract are recoverable only with proper instructions/approvals and within contractual notice periods so most of KC's variation claims were disallowed or time-barred; backcharges were allowed only where supported by evidence (MCCT labour fully charged to KC; other labour costs shared equally; purchases/rentals disallowed for lack of evidence); retention and uncertified sums are payable subject to setoff against established backcharges; no contractual basis existed for pre-jud…

  • 12 Jan 2024

    KAY CORPORATION SDN BHD KAYANGAN KEMAS SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-22C-33-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22C-33-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Clause 2 of the LOA incorporated the Main Contract and bound KC; most of KC's variation claims failed because they lacked Employer/Consultant/Main Contractor approval and/or were time-barred under Clauses 50.1/50.3; KK's backcharges were largely unsupported by requisition/acknowledgement evidence and thus disallowed except for MCCT costs borne by KC and shared labour costs apportioned equally; retention and uncertified sums are payable subject to set-off against justified backcharges; KC's counterclaim dismissed in material part.

  • 30 Sept 2020

    PBLT SDN BHD PRESTASI REKA SDN BHD & 3 LAGI

    Citation
    WA-22C-70-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22C-70-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Final re-measurement and revaluation performed by a qualified quantity surveyor using as-built drawings verified by the consultant civil engineer were accepted as compliant with contract; specific disputed variation valuations and backcharges were resolved on evidence and contractual valuation rules; First Defendant failed to substantiate prolongation/loss claims and did not comply with contractual notice/evidence requirements; Second Defendant was entitled to direct payment under sub-contract clauses and the parties' undertaking and alternatively under s.71; accordingly judgment for Plaintif…