MacIntyre J:

This is an appeal and a counter-appeal from the judgment of Raja Azlan Shah J in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. 1319 of 1964. The appellant's claim against the respondent company was for the sum of $91,445 with interest at 60 per annum from 24 December 1964 to date of realisation and costs. The particulars of the claim as stated in the specially endorsed writ are as follows:

(a) Amount due on account of plaintiff's materials used and damaged by the defendant company while erecting machinery in factory .. $13,800

(b) Alteration to original construction of office and two stores on lot Nos 249, 250 and 979 at $13,595 each for three buildings .. $40,785

(c) Fifth progress payment recommended by the architect in accordance with the work completed but defendant company failed to pay $36,000

(d) Plaintiff's hard-core stores used by defendants .. $500

(e) Plaintiff's property three wheelbarrows used by defendants to cart stones damaged at $40 each .. $ 120

(f) 4" x 6" pillars (hardwood) at $60 each (used by defendants) .. $ 240

Total: $91,445.

At the trial, the appellant abandoned his claim under items (d) (e) and (f) above, thus reducing the total claim to $90,585. The respondents denied owing the amounts claimed; and counter-claimed for damages for breach of contract.

In a written judgment dated 22 June 1966 the learned trial Judge held that the appellant was entitled to a sum of $79,355 in respect of his claim under items (a) (b) and (e) of the statement of claim with interest thereon at 6%. per annum from the 24 December 1964 to 22 June 1966; and that the respondents were entitled to damages for breach of contract in the sum of $105,135.75 with costs of the claim and counter-claim. Then purporting to act on the authority of Hanvale v. Green [1958] 2 WLR 775 he dismissed the appellant's Claim and entered judgment for the respondents for $25,780.75 and costs as aforesaid. In arriving at the figure of $25,780.75 the learned trial Judge appears to have overlooked the amount due to the appellant by way of interest at 6 per annum on $79,355 for 18 months. However, the order of the Court issued by the learned senior assistant Registrar proclaims that judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $79,355 with interest at 6 per annum as aforesaid and that judgment was entered for the defendants for $105,135.75 with costs of the claim and counter-claim. This order, despite the fact that it remedies the arithmetical error apparent on the farce of the written judgment is not only inconsistent with it but is not in the proper form. The learned senior assistant Registrar has no power to alter the form of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge. In dismissing the plaintiff's claim and entering judgment for the defendants the learned trial Judge had acted in accordance with the provisions of O. 21 r. 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which embodies the principle followed in Hanvale v. Green, supra.

The facts of the case briefly are as follows:

The appellant, a building contractor, entered into an oral agreement with the respondents on 8 August 1963 to construct two stores for $105,000 and an office building for $82,500. Some of the terms of the agreement are the same mentioned in a letter (P1) dated 29 July 1963 written by the appellant when tendering for the works. The tender was accepted on the 8 August and the appellant agreed, as evidenced by a written undertaking (D11) to accept $150,000 worth of shares in the respondent company as payment to account of the contract prices.

The work on the two projects started sometime in September 1963 but construction of the stores was delayed, first, because of the time taken to level the site for the stores - a requirement which surprisingly enough appears to have been overlooked when the contract price was fixed - and, secondly, because of structural changes made on the building from time to time at the instance of the respondents. The structural chang