WA-22C-51-06/2019
Case WA-22C-51-06/2019 involves a construction dispute between Eastmont Sdn Bhd (Plaintiff) and Mega Planner Jaya Sdn Bhd (Defendant) regarding outstanding payments for substructure works completed for serviced apartments in Setapak, Kuala Lumpur.
The High Court allowed the Plaintiff's claim for RM7,230,492.14 and dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim for liquidated damages and rectification costs.
The case centered on issues of mutual termination, final account statements, variation orders, and limitation periods for counterclaims.
Background
The dispute arose from a construction contract where the Plaintiff was appointed to carry out substructure works for a project in Setapak. The contract was mutually terminated in December 2013, leading to disagreements over outstanding payments, variation orders, and claims for defective works.
Issues
- Whether the Statement of Final Account dated 28.10.2014 is deemed final and conclusive
- Whether the Defendant has to pay the amounts claimed in the Statement of Claim
- Whether the Defendant's claim for LAD has exceeded the limitation period
- Whether the Defendant is estopped from raising issues of rectification works and LAD
- Whether there exists any right to claim for damages after mutual termination
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to claim for rectification costs
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to set off/claim LAD
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to claim indemnity for late delivery claims
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to set off payments made to G-Pile
Holdings
- Statement of Final Account dated 9.1.2019 deemed final and conclusive
- Plaintiff entitled to claim for outstanding payments and variation orders
- Defendant's LAD claim time-barred under Limitation Act 1953
- Defendant estopped from raising rectification works and LAD claims
- Mutual termination extinguished Defendant's rights to claim damages
- Defendant failed to prove Plaintiff caused damage to piles
Reasoning
- The Defendant's delay in disputing the Final Account made it conclusive
- The Plaintiff successfully proved its claims for payments and variation orders
- The Defendant's counterclaim for LAD was filed beyond the limitation period
- The Defendant's conduct showed no intention to pursue LAD claims after mutual termination
- The Defendant failed to provide expert evidence on alleged pile damage
Significance
Clarifies the effect of mutual termination on parties' rights to claim damages and the importance of timely dispute of final accounts in construction contracts.
Precedential Value
Establishes guidance on handling construction disputes involving mutual termination and limitation periods for counterclaims.
Judgment
Reasoning
The Court found that while the Defendant had various defenses and counterclaims, it failed to pursue them in a timely manner and could not prove the Plaintiff's liability for alleged defective works. The mutual termination and subsequent conduct of parties were crucial in determining their rights.
Main Findings
- Final Account became conclusive due to lack of timely dispute
- Plaintiff proved entitlement to payment for works and variations
- Defendant's counterclaims were time-barred or inadequately proven
- Mutual termination extinguished certain rights to claim damages
Orders Made
- Plaintiff's claim allowed for RM7,230,492.14
- Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
- Interest awarded at 5% per annum from 10.6.2019
- Costs of RM80,000 ordered against Defendant's contributory
Keywords
Case Details
Case ID: WA-22C-51-06/2019
Case Date: 30 August 2024
Case Status: judgment delivered
Court Information
Court: High Court in Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur
Type: High Court
Jurisdiction: Civil
Presiding Judge
Name: Aliza Sulaiman
Position: Judge
Parties
Eastmont Sdn Bhd
plaintiff
Legal Representatives
Mega Planner Jaya Sdn Bhd
defendant
Legal Representatives
Case Information
Case Type: contract
Monetary Value: RM 7,230,492.14
Governing Laws:
- Limitation Act 1953 Section 6 (1, a)
Limitation period for actions founded on contract - Evidence Act 1950 Section 101
Burden of proof - Rules of Court 2012 Section Order 59
Costs - Contracts Act 1950 Section 63
Novation, rescission and alteration of contracts
Cause of Action & Relief Sought
Cause of Action:
Relief Sought:
Interlocutory Applications
| Type | Filed By | Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set Aside JID | defendant | 17 May 2023 | Allowed |
Key Events
Letter of Award issued to Plaintiff
Contract sum of RM26,000,000.00
Mutual termination of contract agreed
Notice of Termination issued
Architect issued instructions to vacate site
Statement of Final Account issued
Valued at RM19,215,148.17
Final Statement of Account signed
By Plaintiff and Quantity Surveyor
High Court judgment delivered
Plaintiff's claim allowed, Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Judgment
Date: 30 August 2024
Outcome: Plaintiff's claim allowed partially, Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Reasoning:
Court found Plaintiff proved its claims while Defendant's counterclaims were time-barred or inadequately proven
Additional Information
Related Cases:
- BA-28NCC-97/2019
- BA-28PW-144-05/2023
- BA-22NCC-82-06/2020
Remarks:
Complex construction dispute involving mutual termination, final accounts and counterclaims. Defendant's appeal pending.