Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Idling costs

  • 13 Sept 2024

    MAHKOTA TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD AFRIMA CONSULTING ENGINEER SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-22C-53-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22C-53-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant breached the LOA in respect of PMC or erection works and failed to establish the specific works and costs for backcharges; evidence established that delay was attributable to defective materials supplied by the Plaintiff (via Zelleco) and not Defendant; non‑pleaded reliance on the RFP could not be admitted; no evidence of unresolved defects at termination; therefore Plaintiff’s claims dismissed and Defendant’s counterclaims for proved items allowed, with net award.

  • 28 Apr 2022

    BUDAYA RESTU SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara Kerajaan Malaysia

    Citation
    WA-21C-4-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-21C-4-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff failed to discharge evidential burden for most rock and trench excavation claims because it did not produce adequate in‑situ soil investigation and objective proof; only Manshield stretch of 27 metres was found to involve rock payable under the Extra Over Item rate at RM6,500/m (RM175,000). Trench rock claim and testing cost claim rejected. Manhole remeasurement claim rejected because prices were rationalised by PHK 2. Plaintiff disentitled to contractual EOTs and consequently to prolongation and idling claims for failing to give timely notices and to demonstrate critical delay caus…

  • 1 Oct 2020

    APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD AGROW BUILDERS SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-12BNCvC-36-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12BNCvC-36-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Retention money of RM63,117.00 ordered released; idling costs allowable only for material shortage, stop‑work instructions and late issuance of RFI as falling within clause 27.2; depletion of pile‑points and surveyor late pegging were not proved or not within recoverable events and awards for those items were set aside; RM8,700/day accepted as reasonable quantum rate for idling and applied for awarded days; total award reduced to RM137,067.00 and appeal allowed in part.

  • 28 Feb 2020

    AGROWBUILDERS SDN BHD APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-B52NCvC-306-10/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-B52NCvC-306-10/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the balance of probabilities plaintiff proved that idling losses were caused by defendant's actions and failures (stop-work orders, failure to supply materials, failure to give instructions), supported by site daily reports and prior acceptance/payment of idling at Saujana Impian; plaintiff therefore entitled to RM705,483.00 idling costs and entitled to release of retention RM63,117.25 (DLP expired); defendant ordered to pay total judgment sum with interest at 5% p.a. from date of writ and costs RM7,000.