Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retention sums

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

YENG YING SDN. BHD. LLC INFRA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-32-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-32-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiff did not establish a mutual agreement to hand over incomplete works (only Location 13 properly handed over); Plaintiff failed to prove any valid contractual variation permitting partial completion; Plaintiff breached the LOA by failing to complete works and not applying for EOT; Defendant was entitled to complete works and to set-off/back charges supported by documentary evidence and to recover contractually stipulated LADs. Consequently Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and Defendant's counterclaims and set-offs are allowed in the specified sums, wit…
23 Jun 2025

SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-132-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and powers under CIPAA, did not breach natural justice by refusing an oral hearing since parties had adequate written opportunities, res judicata did not bar the subsequent adjudication because the asserted claims were not previously decided or paid as at IPC No.59, no fraud was established on the balance of probabilities or shown to have improperly procured the AD, and there were no special circumstances to warrant a stay pending arbitration; accordingly OS132 and OS133 were dismissed and the enforcement orders sought in…
12 Dec 2024

ZENETAC GROUP SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya CLASSIC KANCIL SDN BHD) SAS LITEMETRIC JV SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-25-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove the contractual breaches alleged as basis for termination: delays were principally caused by third‑party DSR confirmations outside Plaintiff's control, no prior notices or warnings were shown, and Stop Work Orders did not establish liability or penalties on Plaintiff; accordingly termination dated 13.8.2018 was unlawful and Plaintiff was entitled to proven outstanding contract work, unlawful deductions returned, and loss of profits, while Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
22 Mar 2024

DIAN MAKMUR SDN BHD ASOMA TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-196-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-196-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Adjudication Decision would not be set aside: the adjudicator did not breach natural justice nor exceed jurisdiction because he considered the issues raised (including alleged set-off), addressed whether the two letters fell within CIPAA, and properly treated service on the registered address; any alleged legal error was not reviewable on setting aside and was not a material breach affecting the outcome.
12 Jan 2024

KAYANGAN KEMAS SDN BHD KAY CORPORATION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22C-50-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-50-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 2 of the LOA incorporated the Main Contract so KC was bound by its terms; variation claims under a lump sum subcontract are recoverable only with proper instructions/approvals and within contractual notice periods so most of KC's variation claims were disallowed or time-barred; backcharges were allowed only where supported by evidence (MCCT labour fully charged to KC; other labour costs shared equally; purchases/rentals disallowed for lack of evidence); retention and uncertified sums are payable subject to setoff against established backcharges; no contractual basis existed for pre-jud…
25 Jul 2023

EAKONMECH SDN BHD MAPLE STEEL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-217-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Adjudicator acted within the scope of the payment claim and the CIPAA: the L4/L5 smoke spill works were raised in the Payment Claim as variation/remeasurement works and supported by as-built drawings, the Adjudicator was entitled under s25(m) to adjust IPC No.11 including retention, and the parties were given directions and opportunities to submit so there was no denial of natural justice. Eakonmech failed to discharge the burden to set aside the adjudication decision under s15(b)/(d); the enforcement application under s28 is therefore allowed.
27 Feb 2023

CTY FACADE BUILDER SDN BHD GD BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-202-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the adjudicator had jurisdiction under CIPAA to determine the matters referred, there was no denial of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction in the adjudicator's treatment of the progress claims, termination and related issues were matters for the adjudicator and his findings would not be reheard, the conditional payment clause was void under s35 CIPAA, and none of the limited grounds in s15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision were made out; accordingly the application to set aside (OS216) was dismissed and the enforcement application (OS202) was granted and…
16 Dec 2021

EXCEL CUBIC RESOURCES SDN BHD PANZANA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-55-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-55-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff's final entitlement was capped by the subcontract maximum ceiling (Clause 1.5) and the Plaintiff failed to comply with Clause 3.3 (no statutory declaration/certification) so Defendant was not in breach of Clause 3.1; the Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant caused delay and failed to apply for EoT under Clause 2.2, therefore Defendant validly imposed LAD under Clause 2.5. Result: Plaintiff awarded limited balance RM139,606.50 with 5% p.a. interest from 8.7.2020; Defendant's counterclaim for LAD RM1,089,600.00 allowed with 5% p.a. interest from 26.8.2020; no or…
6 Mar 2020

YUK TUNG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD DAYA CMT SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(W)-462-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(W)-462-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that Clause 43 required timely written notice and application for EOT; Daya failed to comply so could not rely on the prevention principle or assert time was at large; contemporaneous evidence supported the High Court finding that Daya did not proceed regularly and diligently and termination was lawful; the High Court's mechanistic apportionment reducing LAD was impermissible and YTC is entitled to the full contractual LAD; certain quantum items were adjusted to reflect admitted payments and contractual terms; retention and GST orders adjusted accordingly.
29 Aug 2019

BUMIMETRO CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD SUN-JAYA M & E SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-78-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-78-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence and contractual documents the court held that (1) most VO claims were properly payable on quantum meruit/section 71 where plaintiff's authorized representative had verified/recommended rates and plaintiff was estopped from unilateral large reductions; defendant entitled to RM460,069.40 for VOs; (2) RM100,000 brand-cost compensation was established and allowed; (3) Smart Lighting Control System (supply, install, test and commission as stated in BQ) was within defendant's original subcontract scope but integration with the ESSS was a variation; (4) plaintiff could not recover th…