Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Rectification costs

  • 22 Sept 2025

    ZHONGXIANG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CRCC MALAYSIA BERHAD

    Citation
    WA-22C-54-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22C-54-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the defective piles resulted from the Plaintiff's failure to ensure proper workmanship and cleaning of bore holes (bentonite/filter cake, bulging and necking) as the Plaintiff had contractual responsibility for quality assurance; therefore Plaintiff's payment claims fail and Defendant is entitled to recover rectification costs of RM1,096,745.73 plus interest and costs.

  • 21 Jul 2025

    XXXX Fairview International School Nusajaya Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    W-02(NCvC)(W)-18-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    NCvC
    Case number
    W-02(NCvC)(W)-18-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The LOA fixed a six-month completion to 28 Feb 2015 and contained an express LAD of RM10,000/day which, under the LOA's precedence clause, overrides the GCS cap; the defendant did not validly apply for extension of time under the PAM procedure and unlawfully suspended and failed to complete the works, so LAD ran from 1 Mar 2015 to JKKP certification on 2 Jun 2015 (94 days) equating to RM940,000; plaintiff was entitled to recover third-party rectification costs because defendant failed to deliver works fit for purpose and no valid payment certificates supported defendant's counterclaim, hence…

  • 10 Jul 2024

    Q HORIZON SDN BHD SAMAIDEN SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-22C-74-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22C-74-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the Court found plaintiff proved entitlement only to payment for 41,324 piles accepted by the Defendant at RM30 per pile (RM1,239,720.00) and a nominal 25% value for 17,515 concrete blocks (RM18,828.62), dismissed claims for deviated piles, MMS and variations for lack of proof and absence of approved payment certification; the Defendant proved counterclaims for advances (RM881,860.76) and third-party rectification costs (RM376,175.00) and was entitled to set-off, leaving a net judgment to Plaintiff of RM512.86 with interest and costs directions as ordered.

  • 25 Aug 2020

    Cosmo Maju Sdn Bhd Erallex Sdn Bhd Law Hock Meng

    Citation
    BA-12BNCvC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12BNCvC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appellate court upheld the Sessions Court finding that the 74 doors were defective and that rectification costs of RM92,452.84 were properly awarded, but set aside the orders requiring Cosmo Maju to dismantle, re-supply, reinstall and paint the doors because those orders exceeded the supplier's contractual scope, amounted to specific performance of services the court could not supervise and would unjustly enrich the buyer. The court allowed Cosmo Maju's claim for unpaid value RM189,728.90 subject to set-off of RM92,452.84, resulting in RM97,276.06 payable by Erallex and Law Hock Meng with int…