JOSU ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD vs TSR BINA SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 328

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
JOSU ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TSR BINA SDN BHD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. basis for the appeal concerning interim payment. (Para 1 , 3)
2. key arguments presented regarding premature application and causation. (Para 4 , 26 , 27)
3. court observations on the definition and purpose of interim payments. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 18 , 22)
4. court's reasoning establishing the need for interim payments beyond personal injury. (Para 24 , 25)
5. final outcomes and orders provided by the court. (Para 44)

Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appeal arose out of the Seremban High COURT's decision dated 23 May 2014 dismissing the appellant's application for interim payment under O 22A of the Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012").

[2] There are no written grounds of judgment of the High COURT. We do not, therefore, have the benefit of the High COURT's reasoning for dismissing the application.

Facts Of The Case

[3] The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as follows:

(a) On 5 January 2014, the appellant commenced an action against the respondent for breach of contract. The respondent in turn filed its defence and counter-claim against the appellant also for breach of contract.

(b) On 6 February 2007, the High COURT allowed the appellant's applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 328

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAJOSU ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – AppellantVersusTSR BINA SDN BHD – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
JOSU ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TSR BINA SDN BHD – Respondent