Contract termination requires strict adherence to contractual clauses; failure to comply with notice requirements invalidates the termination.

Background Facts

[1] The Plaintiff successfully tendered for a project to build and upgrade several structures in the Defendant's Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia for a total value of RM4,950,810.00 [the project]. Specifically, the structures were the Bilik Pengawal, Pondok Pengawal, Setor Senjata as well as the Jalan Masuk Utama to the University. For this, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a letter of award dated 30 June 2009. Subsequently, a formal contract dated 11 January 2010 was entered into between the parties [the contract] - see page 8 of Bundle A.

[2] The Plaintiff was granted site possession on 14 July 2009 and the project was expected to be completed by 25 January 2010. As agreed under the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with performance and advance payment guarantees. For the purposes of the project, the Defendant appointed several consultants; namely Damansara Architect as the Architect [Architect]; Mohd Asbi & Associates as the Civil & Structural Engineering Consultants [MAA]; JuruukurBahan HRM as the Quantity Surveyor [QS]; and Emzex Consulting Engineers as the Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Consultants [M&E Consultants].

[3] By letter dated 22 October 2009, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the progress of works under the project was being delayed for various reasons and it sought a total of 149.5 days of extension of time under clause 43 (b) and (f) of the contract [EOT No. 1] - see pages 1 and 2 of Bundle B. Amongst the reasons given were: delay in the Plaintiff's receipt of redesign instructions from the Engineer on the external drainage [the Plaintiff had found existing underground cable pipe and telephone line services when it excavated for drainage pipes]; delays due to discrepancies on various drawings; and unsuitable soil conditions.

[4] During the course of the project, variation orders were issued by the Defendant, the last of which was on 25 January 2010 while the first four related to a test on soil conditions known as the Mackintosh Probe Test; Piling Works; Proposed New RC Drain; and 4 Nos HDPE Cable pipe. As a result of these VOs, the Plaintiff made another application on 17 December 2009 for an EOT of now, 192 days - see pages 3 and 4 of Bundle B. In this application, the Plaintiff further cited clause 43(e) wherein the Plaintiff was required to reschedule the work programme; and, carry out additional work. The Plaintiff also provided further details of the discrepancies in drawings given together with supporting documents, in particular the relevant RFIs or "Refer for Instructions" for consideration of its application for an EOT. On 25 January 2010, the Plaintiff sought another extension of 36 days citing various reasons under clause 43 of the contract.

[5] The Plaintiff was granted an extension of time wherein the completion date was extended to 30 June 2010 - see page 96 of Bundle B. This extension was granted on the recommendation of the "Jawatankuasa Arahan Perubahan Kerja Kali Ke-4/2010" which had sat on 17 May 2010 to consider all of the Plaintiff's applications to date.

[6] However, the Plaintiff did not complete by the extended date. It then sought a s