Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination for non-payment

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2025

Boulevard Pillar Sdn Bhd Goh Hardware & Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

JB-22NCvC-32-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-32-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant wrongfully terminated both contracts because, applying the contract payment schedule, no certified progress payments were due at the date of termination; contemporaneous documents (including plaintiff's own confirmation) establish the value of works completed by defendant as at termination; plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities entitlement to damages equal to the additional cost to complete (new contract sums including profit after deducting value of works) and defendant proved unpaid balance for works completed; set-off of counterclaim against plaintiff award ordered.
11 Aug 2022

1. ) NOH BIN AHMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD BIN CHE GHANI 3. ) ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN 1. ) NOOR HISSHAM BIN ABD AZIZ 2. ) HJ ABDUL MANNAN ROMEL

Citation

AA-22NCvC-20-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-20-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance of probabilities that plaintiffs were acknowledged tenants (invoices/receipts and conduct) but had materially breached the Tenancy Agreement by underpaying agreed rent; termination by defendants was valid for non-payment; plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for demolished/sold structures because fixtures passed to landowner and plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement or quantum; defendants' counterclaim succeeded for vacant possession, arrears of RM46,000, ongoing rent at RM5,000 per month from September 2017 until delivery of vacant possession, interest at 5% p.a. a…
31 Dec 2020

KL ECO CITY SDN BHD TUCK SIN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

Citation

wa-22c-38-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-22c-38-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 23.1(a) and clause 24.1(a)/(b) of the PAM Conditions are condition precedent notice provisions requiring strict compliance; TS failed to comply so it was not entitled to an extension of time or loss and expense (beyond the 19 days EOT that KLE had accepted/ratified); the architect lacked authority to unilaterally waive the condition precedent absent employer ratification; time was not set at large; KLE was lawfully entitled to impose LAD of RM1,050,000 (with specified offsets) and TS's termination under clause 26 was valid because a sum remained unpaid at the material time; TS is entit…

Malaysia Case Law

Boulevard Pillar Sdn Bhd Goh Hardware & Construction Sdn Bhd

1. ) NOH BIN AHMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD BIN CHE GHANI 3. ) ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN 1. ) NOOR HISSHAM BIN ABD AZIZ 2. ) HJ ABDUL MANNAN ROMEL

KL ECO CITY SDN BHD TUCK SIN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD & SATU LAGI