Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation orders

Legal area

Court

1 Oct 2025

CHINA CONSTRUCTION YANGTZE RIVER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai China Construction Third Engineering Group (M) Sdn. Bhd.) WK PLASTERCEIL AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-3-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed. The trial court correctly found on the balance of probabilities that Progress Claim No.22 was submitted and reflected the debt, the works (including variations) were completed and unchallenged by credible evidence of defects, the apartment transfer constituted a partial set-off of RM565,326.00 leaving RM475,365.91 outstanding, and the defendant failed to prove a full and final settlement or properly plead/materially support its defenses; the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were not plainly wrong and are entitled to deference.
11 Sept 2025

TOSHIBA Elevator (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd TANJUNG TERAS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Plaintiff completed the contracted works and proved variation works of RM53,432.00; Defendant failed to prove any agreement by Plaintiff to reduce the contract price and Defendant's 2018 acknowledgment revived the limitation period; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid balance of RM178,963.70 and the claim was not time-barred.
26 May 2025

BESTINET SDN. BHD. 3B IDEATION SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BC-20-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-20-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held there were two separate contracts (a design-and-build Contract 1 and a separate Contract 2 for supply works); many design changes were instructed by the Appellant thereby limiting the Respondent's liability for certain defects and for works by NSCs; the Sessions Court's adverse credibility findings and assessment of expert evidence were largely upheld, but specific findings were varied to award Bestinet RM13,233.35 for timber flooring rectification, RM115,000 for completion of M&E works/testing and RM90,000 to engage consultants to complete statutory submissions; all other…
12 Dec 2024

ZENETAC GROUP SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya CLASSIC KANCIL SDN BHD) SAS LITEMETRIC JV SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove the contractual breaches alleged as basis for termination: delays were principally caused by third‑party DSR confirmations outside Plaintiff's control, no prior notices or warnings were shown, and Stop Work Orders did not establish liability or penalties on Plaintiff; accordingly termination dated 13.8.2018 was unlawful and Plaintiff was entitled to proven outstanding contract work, unlawful deductions returned, and loss of profits, while Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
25 Oct 2024

BLAINE ROBERT DESIGN SDN. BHD. MOHD ZAKRI BIN MOHAMAD NOR

Citation

WA-A52C-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52C-15-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held that the parties formed a valid contract by conduct and extensive documentary and payment evidence despite the defendant not signing; plaintiff performed and handed over works and validly invoiced RM92,900 and RM28,492 which the defendant failed to pay; defendant's counterclaims for post‑defect‑liability remedial costs were outside the contractual scope, unsupported by credible documentary evidence, and therefore failed; silence and failure to call material witnesses permitted adverse inferences and estoppel against the defendant.
12 Sept 2024

NOR HAYATI BINTI MAT YUSOF 1. ) NORASMUNA AILI BINTI AHMAD 2. ) WAN IZZAH IWANA NADJMIN BINTI WAN AHMAD IZUAN

Citation

CA-12BNCvC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-12BNCvC-2-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed in part: appellant proved performance of the original contract works totalling RM74,800 but payments already made by respondents amounting to RM66,000 left a balance of RM8,800 payable to appellant; claims for variation orders and other sums were dismissed because appellant failed to call the key witness (project manager) and to produce documents proving respondent instruction/acceptance of VOs, warranting application of s.114(g) and rejection of those claims; initial procedural defect (omitted lower court order) was cured by leave to file, thus not fatal.
30 Aug 2024

EASTMONT SDN BHD MEGA PLANNER JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SoFA returned signed and not disputed within the applicable PAM contractual dispute period (Clause 26.6/30.10) and is therefore final; Plaintiff proved entitlement to outstanding works, materials and variation sums on balance of probabilities; Defendant's counterclaim for LAD and rectification is both time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 and estopped by laches and Defendant failed to prove causation and quantum for alleged pile damage, so counterclaim dismissed.
15 Aug 2024

NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD QUANTUM HYDROMECH SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-29-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application because Quantum failed to prove a material denial of natural justice or that the adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction; the issues raised were disagreements on findings of fact and merits which are not grounds under s15 CIPAA; the adjudicator had jurisdiction under ss5,6,27 and validly exercised powers under s25; consequently the enforcement application under s28 CIPAA was allowed and the adjudication decision was enforced as a High Court judgment.
5 Jul 2024

AH SOON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD SIMAS-D SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-48-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-48-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed Plaintiff's late payment interest claim because calculations of delayed days and BLR were erroneous or unproved, no written notice under Clause 30.17 was given, and the claim appeared to be an afterthought; court dismissed Plaintiff's challenge to the 21-day delay and the LAD of RM315,000 because the Architect certified 21 days, Plaintiff raised no contemporaneous objection and Defendant was entitled to set off the LAD under the contract; court allowed Plaintiff's claim for the unpaid balance RM295,787.10 for strengthening works because VOs were certified, Defendant failed to…
14 Jun 2024

ESSTAR VISION SDN BHD KUPPS & SACHS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-103-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-103-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held Plaintiff prevented Defendant from completing the Works by issuing continuous revisions and by withholding necessary information and payments; the unlimited revision clause was construed to operate up to P&ID Code 1 approval and thereafter changes were variations; the EoT clause did not cover the acts of prevention relied upon so time became at large; Defendant lawfully terminated at common law and was entitled to USD90,000 (3rd Milestone balance), USD8,000 (Addendum) and USD49,448 (Variation Claim) with interest at 5% p.a. from 6.1.2021 and costs RM70,000; Plaintiff's claims dismi…