Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Payment schedule

  • 25 Nov 2024

    MANIAM A/L SINASAMI ALIES JUSPINA BINTI AHMAD KAMAL

    Citation
    CB-A72NCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    CB-A72NCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    On the balance of probabilities the court accepted evidence (including photographs and experienced witness SD2) that works had progressed to the stage warranting the second payment; the MPB stop notice existed and responsibility for obtaining approval rested with the Plaintiff, therefore Plaintiff failed to prove breach by Defendant and Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

  • 26 Jul 2024

    LATEX FORM SDN BHD IVORY GLOVE SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-22NCvC-520-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22NCvC-520-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the contract required concurrent installation and that Plaintiff had substantially performed (approx. 95%, 70%, 60%), Defendant breached the payment schedule causing suspension; Plaintiff entitled to payment of RM4,040,000 for completion of machine one and must complete, Defendant's counterclaims for liquidated damages, loss of profit and storage were not proven and are dismissed; Plaintiff awarded interest at 5% p.a. on RM4,040,000 from filing date and costs RM15,000.

  • 29 Nov 2023

    C & S ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SDN BHD AMBAWANG HOLDINGS SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-22C-67-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22C-67-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the Court found the contractual documents (DA and LoA, including Appendix 1) govern the parties' rights; the Defendant had paid RM2,510,000.00 as the 3rd stage (preliminaries/earthworks/foundation) and that amount did not offset the Plaintiff's claims under the 4th stage; the plaintiff's expert valuation using the contractual construction-stage method was preferred to the defendant's market-rate estimate; accordingly the plaintiff proved entitlement to RM2,340,815.30 with interest; scaffolding claim and defendant's counterclaim were dismissed.