Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Escrow account

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

AXVENTURE SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was no consensus ad idem on Clause 7 (Performance Bond) and therefore no concluded contract based on the LoA; however Plaintiff lawfully performed works at Defendant's request and Defendant enjoyed the benefit, entitling Plaintiff to restitution under s 71 Contracts Act 1950; award of actual costs RM1,265,666.43 with interest and costs; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
21 Dec 2020

IBR CONCEPTS SDN BHD 1. ) LAKSAMANA CEMERLANG SDN BHD 2. ) FARIDAH BINTI MUHAMED 3. ) SHAMSUL AZHAR BIN HARON 4. ) UNIVERSITI MALAYA

Citation

WA-22C-91-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-91-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Plaintiff had established c.99% physical completion and was entitled to the outstanding balance RM1,716,834.45 plus interest; the Plaintiff paid the performance bond RM96,349.87 on D1’s behalf and is entitled to repayment; D1’s unilateral termination of the Sub-Contract was unlawful because procedural/notice requirements under the contract were not followed; Plaintiff bore 211 days of LAD and under Clause 10 of the SCA is entitled to deduction equivalent to two months LAD so D1's full LAD counterclaim failed; D1 failed to prove special damag…
1 Jan 1900

BETTER POWER (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200101008484 (544240-P)) 1. ) 1. PATICORP SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200101013893 (5496500-P)) 2. ) 2. REAL TECH ENTREPRENEUR (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200701022118 (780133-T)) 3. ) 3. ABDUL GHAFUR BIN H

Citation

PA-22NCVC-136-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-136-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the plaintiff only had a good arguable case limited to RM235,378.65 against the 1st Defendant; there was no good arguable case against Defendants 2–6; the plaintiff failed to show a real risk of dissipation of assets from the escrow given shared control and absence of probity concerns (save for non-dispositive disciplinary history of one director); and the balance of convenience favoured denying the Mareva injunction because freezing funds would prejudice project completion. Accordingly the Mareva application was dismissed and prior ex parte and ad interim orders ceased.

Malaysia Case Law

AXVENTURE SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD

IBR CONCEPTS SDN BHD 1. ) LAKSAMANA CEMERLANG SDN BHD 2. ) FARIDAH BINTI MUHAMED 3. ) SHAMSUL AZHAR BIN HARON 4. ) UNIVERSITI MALAYA

BETTER POWER (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200101008484 (544240-P)) 1. ) 1. PATICORP SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200101013893 (5496500-P)) 2. ) 2. REAL TECH ENTREPRENEUR (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200701022118 (780133-T)) 3. ) 3. ABDUL GHAFUR BIN H