Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payment certificates

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG LI CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Te Chee Siong 5. ) Lim Soon Seng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahari Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found sufficient pleaded particulars and corroborating evidence that D2 and D3 misrepresented an urgent need and verified unsupported claims, that D1 did not legitimately supply machinery claimed, that two retrospective work orders were used to regularize prior dubious invoices, and that D4 and D5 (directors) consented to and benefited from the scheme so the corporate veil is lifted; relief was granted accordingly including repayment of overpayment and damages; D1's counterclaim was dismissed.
9 Jun 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG LI CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Te Chee Siong 5. ) Lim Soon Seng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahari Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that D2 and D3 made material misrepresentations as to urgency and verified/payments for fabricated or unsupported claims by D1; delivery records and kong cards were unreliable; plaintiff overpaid RM3,100; D4 and D5, as controllers of D1, were complicit so corporate veil is lifted; declarations, monetary awards (general, aggravated/exemplary), interest and costs were ordered accordingly.
21 Apr 2025

GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN. BHD. DAMAI CITY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C-143-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-143-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudication decision was valid despite being delivered after 45 working days because DCSB caused lawful suspension of proceedings via restraining orders and judicial management filings under Companies Act ss 368 and 410 which tolled the adjudication timeline and prevented continuation without court leave; the adjudicator acted within statutory powers (including rejecting a rejoinder) and properly dealt with issues including Interim Certificate No.24, hence there were no special circumstances or clear errors to set aside or stay the adjudication decision.
15 Apr 2024

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) PEMBINAA LEEPING 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Foo Kee Leang 5. ) Lim Soon Peng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahri Bin Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-39-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-39-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that D2–D5 conspired to submit fraudulent Progress Claims or that D1 did not perform the works; evidence for supply of labour in October–November 2016 was not proven due to unreliable Kong cards, daily site reports and missing witness testimony; contractual conditions for release of retention monies and performance bond were not satisfied; accordingly Plaintiff’s claims dismissed and part of D1’s counterclaim allowed for RM768,379.01 inclusive of 6% GST with interest as ordered; costs awarded to D2, D3, D4 and D5 as specified; no costs…
30 May 2022

CHINA CONSTRUCTION PEARL RIVER (M) SDN BHD 1. ) INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) SEMANGAT GLOBAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-50-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-50-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Bond, on its proper construction, is an on-demand guarantee payable upon the beneficiary's written assertion of default; however, on the balance of convenience the Plaintiff demonstrated unconscionability by reason of over-securitisation because certified sums and unpaid interim claims produced a net credit in the Plaintiff's favour such that restraint of encashment was justified pending arbitration, therefore an interlocutory injunction restraining pay-out/receipt was granted with costs allocated.
19 Nov 2021

FZA UTAMA SDN. BHD. BPH BINA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22C-113-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-113-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found Clause 2.4 did not create a back-to-back/pay-when-paid obligation to KPKT/Intraxius; factual evidence showed payments were treated on a stand-alone basis by Defendant; Plaintiff proved completion and entitlement to Progress Claims Nos.1-6 (RM3,665,026.82), Progress Claim No.7 (RM1,609,087.42) and Earthworks (RM420,000.00) with interest; Defendant failed to prove overpayment or loss/aggravated damages, so counterclaim dismissed.
28 Oct 2020

ASM DEVELOPMENT (KL) SDN BHD ECONPILE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-253-11/2019 & WA-24C-200-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-253-11/2019 & WA-24C-200-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to set aside the adjudication decision because ASM's complaints were primarily merits-based or non-material procedural issues, the adjudicator acted within the statutory jurisdiction under CIPAA when addressing the pleaded issues (including valuation and causation of delay), there was no material denial of natural justice, and EP satisfied statutory requirements for enforcement; accordingly OS1 dismissed and OS2 allowed and the adjudication award enforced.
29 Nov 2019

TSR BINA SDN BHD HIFORM (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-107-06/2019 & WA-24C-115-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the adjudicator did not commit material breaches of natural justice nor act beyond her CIPAA jurisdiction: she heard parties, considered remeasurement evidence, gave reasons for preferring the Payment Claim figure, addressed variation orders and time issues as consequential to TSR’s LAD defence, and was entitled to consider time at large. TSR’s new complaints were largely afterthoughts not raised at adjudication. There were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay; enforcement under s28 CIPAA was therefore granted and the setting aside and stay applications dismi…
19 Sept 2019

Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd Juang Setia Sdn Bhd

Citation

03-2-11/2018(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

B
Case number

03-2-11/2018(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Where a valid arbitration clause exists and a defendant applies under section 10 before taking steps in the proceedings, the court must stay proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of performance; a default judgment obtained in breach of such clause does not extinguish the agreement to arbitrate and the Court of Appeal erred in restoring the default judgment without addressing the s10 stay application.