Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Retention

  • 3 May 2024

    LDE PROJECT SDN BHD KAY PRIDE SDN BHD

    Citation
    BA-24C-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-24C-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Defendant failed to serve the mandatory Section 30(2) notice; the Defendant also failed to discharge its evidential burden to show no monies were due or payable to the main contractor at the time of the Plaintiff's written request. Therefore Section 30(3) is engaged and the Defendant is obliged to pay the adjudicated amount including interest and adjudication costs as awarded in the Adjudication Decision.

  • 9 Jul 2023

    Seng Hiap Glass Sdn. Bhd. C.E.L. Construction Sdn. Bhd.

    Citation
    JA-22NCvC-17-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-22NCvC-17-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the Defendant breached the sub-contract by failing to provide safe and reliable hoisting and lifting facilities, the Interim Valuation Certificates 35-38 (as accepted/approved by the Defendant via its own Progress Claim Payment Certificates) constituted certification entitling payment, the Plaintiff validly terminated for Defendant's repudiatory breach, and is therefore entitled to the unpaid certified sums (RM947,989.23), GST (RM56,879.36), retention (RM311,400.00) and under-certified sum (RM298,989.81) with contractual interest; the Defendant's counter-claim…

  • 23 Apr 2021

    FRONTPRISE INTERIOR SDN BHD ACOUSTRO CORPORATION SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-12AC-10-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-12AC-10-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Appellant materially prevented issuance of progress payment certificates and had not pleaded or substantiated bona fide triable defences; Respondent therefore entitled to recover unpaid progress payment claims in court as if certificates had been issued, subject to contractual retention deduction; contractual default interest was not established so court awarded discretionary interest at 5% p.a.; summary judgment accordingly entered for Respondent in reduced amount.