A party is only liable for damages under a contract if a breach is established, as per contractual obligations.

Introduction

[1] Through a Writ and its Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff seeks judgment to be entered against the Defendant for a sum of RM1,312,000.00 for Liquidated Ascertained Damages ("hereinafter referred to as "LAD") under a contract entered into between them for the Defendant's alleged delay in completing the subcontracted works. The amount of the claim is arrived at as the alleged delay of 82 days and the LAD clause provides for the same at a rate of RM 16,000.00 per day.

[2] A full trial was necessary as I had previously dismissed a summary judgment application pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of 2012 on the basis that I had found that the Defendant had succeeded in raising triable issues.

[3] At trial, each party only produced one witness to support their respective cases. Both learned Counsel thereafter had proceeded to file their written submissions and having read and considered the same, I will now proceed to set out the background facts, the issues, and my analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary so as to ascertain if the Plaintiff has succeeded in discharging its burden of proving its claim on a balance of probabilities.

The Background Facts

[4] The background facts are largely undisputed and are as follows:

4.1. the Plaintiff was appointed vide a Letter of Award dated 9 March 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said LOA") as the main contractor by BYG Architecture Sdn Bhd on behalf of Syarikat Asia Green Construction Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the employer") for a project known as "Cadangan Mendirikan Satu (01) Blok Rumah Pangsa Kos Rendah 34 Tingkat (349 Unit) termasuk 9 Tingkat Podium Tempat letak Kenderaan dan kemudahan Masyarakat (Hakmilik Strata) diatas Lot 12807, Jalan Merbah, Mukim 12, D.B.D, Pulau Pinang" (hereinafter referred to as "the said project");

4.2. I Consultancy Mechanical & Electrical Consulting Engineers (Registration Number: PG0247538-M) (hereinafter referred to as "I Consultancy") were the appointed Electrical and Mechanical consultants for the said project;

4.3. I Consultancy had issued a Letter of Intent dated 27 August 2014 to the Defendant confirming the Defendant as the nominated subcontractor for the electrical works of the said project (hereinafter referred to as "the said Letter of Intent");

4.4. I Consultancy then issued a Letter of Instruction dated 28 July 2015 to the Plaintiff instructing the Plaintiff to accept the Defendant as the nominated subcontractor for the supply, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning, and maintenance of the electrical installation for the said project at a fixed lump sum of RM2,040,000.00 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Letter of Instruction"); and

4.5. consequently, the Plaintiff issued a letter dated 28 July 2015 appointing the Defendant as the nominated subcontractor (hereinafter referred to as the said "Letter of Award").

[5] The Plaintiff's claim as pleaded in para 14 of the Statement of Claim is that despite the completion date being 31 March 2017, the Defendant delayed completion and had only completed the works on 21 June 2017 which was the date when TNB gave its approval. Since it is the Plaintiff's case that completion was only achieved on the 21 June 2017 with the issuance of the TNB letter of approval, it is apt that the said letter be reproduced for its true effect.

The Issues To Be Decided

[6] Whilst there was no dispute between the parties in relation to the agreements entered into as well as to the fact that the agreed completion date was 31 March 2017, the issues that required determination by the Court were broadly as follows;

6.1 whether the Defendant had completed all its j