The court upheld that privity of contract is essential for claims, ruling that a party cannot be held liable under a contract to which it is not a signatory, emphasizing the importance of performance bonds in construction agreements.

(Enclosure 1)

[1] In the matter now before this Court, a dispute had previously arisen from one of the construction contracts involving Lembaga Getah Malaysia, a body corporate established under the Malaysian Rubber Board (Incorporation) Act 1996 , who is the 1st Defendant herein ("LGM") with regards a development in Sungai Buloh which was undertaken on a freehold land forming part of Lot 481 and Lot 2047, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan, measuring approximately 535 acres in total (hereinafter referred to as "the LGM land").

[2] LGM had by way of a "Project Delivery Partner Agreement" dated 9 December 2013 ("PDP Agreement") entered into an agreement with KLIA Associates Sdn Bhd and KLIA Consultancy Services Sdn Bhd, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively, as its project delivery partner, with regards the project known as "Kerja-kerja Pembangunan Tanah Lembaga Getah Malaysia (LGM) Di Atas Sebahagian Lot 481 dan Lot 2047, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan" ("the Project") on the said LGM Land.

[3] Under the terms of the PDP Agreement, both the 2nd and the 3rd Defendants were to have formed a joint venture consortium known as "KLIAA-KLIACS Consortium".

[4] The PDP Agreement also states that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants services were defined as follows:

"the planning, design (inclusive of such part of the Design Works to be carried by the PDP pursuant to cl 4A 1), engineering, project management, cost and schedule management, construction management and supervision services, contract administration, testing, commissioning and, if so required, Remediation Services to be provided or performed by the PDP in relation to the Works and in order to complete the Project, which may be amended from time to time by a Contract Variation Order, as more particularly described in cl 4.1, and including but not limited to the services set out in Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule A (Scope of Services/Design Works)"

[5] Under the PDP Agreement the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were remunerated by the payment of fees in accordance with Schedule E of the PDP Agreement.

[6] Whereas under cl 10.1.2 of the PDP Agreement, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are to enter into a contract with the Work Package Contractor for the Work Package.

[7] Based on the facts and evidence presented before me, the Plaintiff had submitted a tender dated 27 January 2017 and a revised tender dated 10 February 2017 for works as defined in the said documents.

[8] Prior to the tender submission, the Plaintiff had also participated in the pre-tender exercise, where the Plaintiff was selected to vie for the packages under the development together with other big names in the construction industry such as Ahmad Zaki, Muda Jaya, Mitrajaya and MRCB.

[9] The Plaintiff's tender was subsequently selected and thereafter a Letter of Acceptance was issued by the PDP on 1 March 2017 ("Contract 1") with the same being referred to as the "Project Pembangunan Pusat Kecer