SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1569

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
X DIMENSION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DATUK CHIANG HENG KIENG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12BC-8-05/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Edmund Bon Tai Soon,Khor Xiou Shan,Lee Yee Woei ,Respondent Advocate: Edmond Teh,Wong Kar Chun,Wong Yi Ying

Contracts with unregistered professionals are illegal and void ab initio, preventing recovery of fees or damages by the unregistered party while allowing the registered party to claim for rectification costs.

Headnote:(A) Architects Act 1967 - Sections 27A and 27E - Contracts Act 1950 - Section 25 - Legality of contracts - The Defendant, unregistered as an Interior Designer, entered into contracts deemed illegal and void ab initio, rendering the Defendant's counterclaim unenforceable - Plaintiffs entitled to claim for rectification costs due to defects in Defendant's work. (Paras 30-43, 48-56)

(B) Judicial Appreciation - A judge must assess evidence and provide judicial reasoning for decisions - Failure to do so can lead to appellate rehearing. (Paras 25-27)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs engaged the Defendant for interior design services under three contracts, which were found to be illegal due to the Defendant's lack of registration as mandated by law. The Plaintiffs claimed damages for defects in the Defendant's work, while the Defendant counterclaimed for unpaid sums.

Findings of Court:
The contracts were ruled illegal, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to claim RM727,860.00 for rectification costs, while the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Issues: The legality of the Defendant's role as an unregistered consultant, entitlement to counterclaim, and the validity of the Plaintiffs' claims were the main issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contracts entered into by unregistered professionals are illegal, and parties cannot benefit from illegal contracts. The Plaintiffs were not at fault for the illegality and were entitled to damages.

Result: The Defendant's appeal was dismissed; Plaintiffs' claim for general damages was denied, but they were awarded rectification costs.

Table of Content
1. introduction of parties and appeal context. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of contracts and payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. plaintiffs' claims regarding contract legality. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. defendant's claims and counterclaims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. outcome of sessions court trial. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. court's analysis of contract legality. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
7. finding contracts void due to illegality. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. plaintiffs' entitlement to damages despite illegality. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
9. final ruling on damages. (Para 56)
10. conclusion and costs awarded. (Para 57)
Sumathi Murugiah JC:

A. Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. The Appellant was the Defendant, whereas the Respondent was the Plaintiffs.

[2] This appeal was filed by the Defendant against part of the decision of the Sessions Court dated 29 April 2024 in the Civil Suit No: BA-A52C-35- 10/2020.

B. Brief Background

[3] On 31 May 2018, the Plaintiffs had approached the Defendant for interior design and renovation services for a project located at No 30, Jalan DU 6/5, Ambrosia@Kinrara Residensi, Taman Damai, Utama, 47180 Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the Property).

[4] Defendant submitted a quotation along with the terms and conditions for interior design consultancy services for the Property through a letter dated 18 July 2018 (ID Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 1st Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the ID Contract on 16 October 2018.

[5] In or around September 2018, the Defendant was requested to submit a quotation along with terms and conditions for construction works related to the extension of the Property. The Defendant submitted a revised quotation along with the terms and conditions for the construction works related to the extension of the Property through a letter dated 26 September 2018 (Extension Works Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 1st Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the Extension Works Contract on 16 October 2018.

[6] In or around December 2018, The Defendant was requested to submit a quotation along with terms and conditions for interior fit-out works of the Property. The Defendant submitted a revised quotation along with the terms and conditions for the interior fit-out works of the Property through a letter dated 19 December 2018 (Interior Fit-Out Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 2nd Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the Interior Fit-Out Contract on 20 December 2018.

[7] Altogether, the Defendant was engaged by the Plaintiffs to carry out 3 contracts (collectively known as "the project"):

i. ID Contract - contract sum of RM55,000.00

ii. Extension Works Contract - contract sum of RM520,000.00

iii. Interior Fit-Out Contract - contract sum of RM588,750.00

[8] However, the contract sum for the Extension Works Contract and the Interior Fit-Our Contract were subsequently reduced to RM416,160.00 and RM506,110.00 respectively as the scope of works were reduced in these contracts.

[9] Apart from these 3 contracts, the Defendant had also requested the Plaintiffs to pay an additional sum of RM42,000.00 for the Architect's and Engineer's services which included but not limited to the application for the procurement of CCC from the local authorities.

[10] Additionally, there were 10 variation order (VO) claims by the Defendant for this Project. The preliminary works were carried out by the Defendant on or around September 2018 and the understanding between parties was for the completion of the project to be before the Chinese New Year 2019 which was celebrated on 5 February 2019.

[11] The Defendant did not complete the project by 5 February 2019, however, the Plaintiffs had nevertheless moved in to the Property just before Chinese New Year 2019. The Defendant had resumed work at around end o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top