Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate of practical completion

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

ESYS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NURUL SHAZILA BTE MUHAMAD

Citation

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A72NCvC-49-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the affidavits and contemporaneous documents the plaintiff proved the debt: invoices, a valid CPC, WhatsApp requests for price reduction and two part payments; the defendant's denials were bare, contradicted by contemporaneous evidence and failed to disclose a bona fide triable defence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for RM89,780.89 with interest and costs, and the defendant's counterclaim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as vexatious/abusive of process.
28 Oct 2025

BGMC CORPORATION SDN BHD 1. ) GITA KASTURI SDN. BHD. 2. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The performance bond was conditional and the 1st Defendant supplied the required basis when calling the bond; the Plaintiff failed to produce manifest, cogent evidence of unconscionable conduct sufficient to restrain the call; the call was an exercise of contractual rights under the PAM Contract and LoA, therefore the injunction was refused and the originating summons dismissed with costs.
15 Nov 2024

PERSPEKTIF MASA SDN BHD SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-549-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-549-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellant failed to show a bona fide serious issue to be tried; the bank guarantees were unconditional on‑demand instruments and the bank had no duty to investigate the beneficiary’s demand; the appellant did not make full and frank disclosure in the ex‑parte application and did not prove unconscionability; accordingly the injunction was not justified and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Sept 2023

K.K. ORIENTAL BUILDER SDN BHD MERCHANT SYNERGY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22C-46-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-46-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 6.0 of the Letters of Award remained binding because the Defendant failed to produce evidence of any amendment; Plaintiff proved entitlement to the claimed sums: LA-1 and LA-2 were completed with CCCs established and LA-3 and LA-4 were incompletable due to the MCO stop order so Plaintiff is entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis measured by its progressive claims; Defendant failed to prove its counterclaims for rectification costs and LAD due to insufficient, unreliable evidence and failure to produce critical documents (eg CPC).
17 Aug 2023

1. ) SMOOTH ACHIEVEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) CHONG KIM FOO 3. ) HYPER INDUSTRIAL AUTOMOTIVE SDN BHD 4. ) KUA SWEE KIAT 5. ) KUA SWEE KEONG 6. ) SWISSMA BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 7. ) PLY-MART SDN BHD 1. ) CEKAL UNGGUL SDN BHD 2. ) JURUTERA PERU

Citation

BA-22NCvC-283-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-283-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Vendor's contractual duty under Clause 11.2 to provide infrastructure includes ensuring steps are taken to have utilities laid to the land boundary and completion of M&E where applicable; entitlement to LAD depends on whether vacant possession was delivered after the contractual period (including extensions); Certificate of Practical Completion issued by the civil consultant was not shown to be issued negligently and thus Defendant 2 is not liable; where purchasers failed to make progressive payments vendor is entitled to counterclaims for unpaid sums with contractual interest under Clause 3.…
23 Jun 2022

JUMSAR (SARAWAK) SDN. BHD. ROBIN DOCKYARD & ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-02(NCvC)(A)-1267-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-02(NCvC)(A)-1267-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Majority held the Adjudication Decision was tainted by a breach of natural justice because the adjudicator relied on the Auditor General's report (showing CPC) obtained from the public domain without disclosing it or giving the parties an opportunity to comment; that procedural breach was material and warranted setting aside of the enforcement at the High Court and allowing the appeals; the High Court judge erred in dismissing the setting aside application and enforcing the AD.
23 Jun 2022

JUMSAR (SARAWAK) SDN. BHD. ROBIN DOCKYARD & ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-02(C)(A)-1268-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

Q-02(C)(A)-1268-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Majority held the adjudicator relied on the Auditor General's Report (CPC date) obtained from the public domain without disclosing it or allowing the parties to respond; that non-disclosure and reliance on external material on a core contested issue amounted to a material breach of natural justice that tainted the adjudication decision and justified setting it aside; the High Court erred in enforcing the AD.
7 Oct 2021

1. ) TAN LEONG HENG 2. ) CHIANG MEI YOKE 3. ) TAN ENG KHEE 4. ) CHEOK KOK BENG 5. ) LEE CHOY LOCK 6. ) SEK WAI CHIN 7. ) MAKMUR INFINITI SDN BHD 8. ) CHAN SAY HWA 9. ) CHOW PUI LING 10. ) VERSATILE UNION SDN BHD 11. ) GOBINDER SINGH A/L NAR

Citation

WA-22NCC-46-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-46-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The CPCs issued by the vendor’s consulting engineer and corroborating site evidence and expert reports established that the Basic Infrastructural Works (service roads, drains, water mains, electrical ducting and related items) were provided in accordance with the SPAs; letters notifying vacant possession combined with clause 7.2(b) meant vacant possession was deemed delivered after 14 days; plaintiffs therefore failed to prove breach of the SPAs and are not entitled to declarations or liquidated damages; claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
22 Sept 2020

ZEME TRADE (M) SDN BHD 1. KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCVC-2-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-2-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court allowed only the unpaid balance of RM335,510.18 because the defendants did not dispute the figure and failed to particularize the alleged non‑compliance with the Deed of Assignment; claims for Variation Order and Variation of Price were dismissed for lack of evidence of agreement/approval and because allowing VOP would exceed the Assigned Sum ceiling; liquidated damages claim was dismissed because it was not pleaded with material facts despite omnibus prayer.
22 Sept 2020

ZEME TRADE (M) SDN BHD 1. KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCVC-2-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-2-02/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid balance of RM335,510.18 because the defendants did not dispute the figure and failed to identify specific terms of the Deed of Assignment said to be unmet; claims for the Variation Order and Variation of Price were dismissed for lack of required agreement/approval and because allowing the VOP would exceed the Assigned Sum and was not provided for under the SD Com Letter of Acceptance; liquidated damages were denied because they were not pleaded with a factual basis.