Under s 71 of the Contracts Act, a party may claim compensation for work done where the beneficiaries of that work are unjustly enriched.

[1] These two appeals were heard together; the parties agreed that the decision in the first appeal would bind the second appeal as the appeals involve identical issues. The two appeals arise from two separate sub-contracts between the parties.

[2] The appellant sued the respondent for payment as the recipient of work that the appellant did which work was never intended to be done for free, a claim founded under s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 . Alternatively, the appellant's claim is based on quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

The Factual Background

[3] The respondent was the developer and employer of a project known as "Cadangan Pembangunan 2 Blok Pangsapuri (542 unit) yang mengandungi 1 blok (Blok A) 24 tingkat (272 unit), 1 blok (Blok B) 24 tingkat (270 unit) termasuk kolam renang dan kemudahan rekreasi dengan 3 paras tempat letak kereta di atas Lot PT 13361 Mukim Petaling, Jalan Senangria, Kuala Lumpur untuk Tetuan Utama Lodge Sdn Bhd" (the said project). MEG Consult was the respondent's mechanical & electrical engineer, while Des Architect was the architect and Juruukur Bahan FPS Sdn Bhd, its quantity surveyor.

[4] Through a tender process, the appellant was awarded two sub-contracts dated 15 July 2011 [1st subcontract] and 22 December 2011 [2nd subcontract] respectively. The 1st subcontract is in relation to cold water and sanitary plumbing services, the 2nd subcontract is for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation services. The two subcontracts were entered into between the appellant and the respondent's main contractor, Sara-Timur Sdn Bhd The appellant was identified under these sub-contracts as the domestic sub-contractor.

[5] During the project, the appellant submitted its claims for work to Sara-Timur. These claims were copied to the respondent, MEG Consult and Des Architect. The respondent paid against these claims by cheques issued to the appellant but delivered to the appellant, through Sara-Timur. The appellant claimed that its works were never assessed by Sara-Timur. Instead, Sara-Timur received profit on attendance.

[6] On 3 May 2016, Sara-Timur was wound up. The appellant submitted its final claim [Claim No 38] for the total sum of RM1,805,203.46 for original and additional works under the 1st subcontract. A separate claim was made for the works under the 2nd subcontract.

[7] When the claim was rejected by the respondent, the appellant sued the respondent for payment under s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 with alternative claims based on quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

[8] In the first appeal, the sub-contract is for cold water and sanitary plumbing services for the Seringgin Apartments for the sum of RM1,805,203.46. In the second appeal, the sub-contract was for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation services for the construction project and the appellant's claim is for RM1,619,549.45.

[9] The respondent relied on the primary defence of lack of privity of contract, that there was no contract between them and that there was no cause of action against the respondent. The respondent averred that the payment method agreed under the subcontract does not create any contract between the parties and/or impose any contractual obligation on the respondent to pay the appellant.

[10] The respondent further alleged that the appellant did not complete the works under the subcontract requiring thus the respondent to appoint th