Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Variations

  • 14 May 2025

    Poteck Enterprise Sdn Bhd Richallenge Corporation Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    S-02(IM)(NCvC)-151-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    IM
    Case number
    S-02(IM)(NCvC)-151-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The High Court's awards were varied because the trial judge erred in relying on IPC14 instead of the revised IPC14R for valuation of work done, and because variation works and loss of profit were not proved with required foundational factual evidence; accordingly the award for work done was reduced to RM783,200.00 (based on IPC14R), variations set to nil, advance payment RM500,000.00 retained, performance bond refunded in full (RM2,137,500.00), loss of profit reduced to nominal RM10,000.00, producing a substituted damages award of RM3,430,700.00 with interest and costs as ordered.

  • 25 Oct 2023

    EXCEL M&E SDN BHD MUJUR SEPAKAT SDN BHD

    Citation
    CA-22C-1-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CA-22C-1-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff completed the contracted works as evidenced by Bomba inspections and CFO/CCC issuance, that variation works were instructed and completed, and that prolongation costs arose from defendant-caused hindrance; the defendant failed to adduce contrary documentary evidence or show defects, therefore plaintiff is entitled to the unpaid lump sum, variations, and prolongation costs; defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.

  • 26 Jul 2021

    GPR Construction Sdn Bhd Sri Ternak Properties Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    BA-22C-24-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22C-24-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the evidence the court found practical completion of the First Contract save for mutually omitted items; there was no mutual agreement to reduce the piling rate and no written variation to justify the employer's unilateral reduction, so piling must be paid at contract rate; plaintiff entitled to preliminaries and half stamp duty; plaintiff failed to comply with PAM clause 24 for loss and expense and failed to prove sales tax authority and variation claims; defendant failed to prove defect rectification costs and causation for alleged losses and is limited to LAD under the Second Contract w…