Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5483
MAGISTRATE COURT ALOR GAJAH
MZHR RESOURCES – Appellant
Versus
FIZZ ASSOCIATES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Case No: MC-A72-1-02/2024]
A party's failure to fulfill contractual obligations, including timely completion and quality of work, constitutes a breach of contract, justifying the other party's counterclaim for damages incurred.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Breach of Contract - The Plaintiff claimed RM28,790.00 for unpaid renovation work, while the Defendant counterclaimed RM19,911.90 for costs incurred due to incomplete work - The Plaintiff failed to complete the project within the stipulated time, leading to the Defendant hiring a third party - The court found that the Plaintiff breached the terms of the Purchase Orders by not providing skilled labor and failing to complete the work as agreed. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Counterclaim - The Defendant's counterclaim was allowed as the Plaintiff's work was deemed defective and incomplete, resulting in additional costs for the Defendant. (Paras 39-44)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff was engaged for a renovation project but did not complete the work within the agreed timeframe, leading to additional costs for the Defendant who had to hire a third party to rectify the issues.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff breached the contract by failing to complete the work and allowed the Defendant's counterclaim for costs incurred.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Plaintiff completed the works under the Purchase Orders and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to claim for unpaid amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiff's failure to complete the work constituted a breach of contract, and the Defendant was justified in withholding payment and pursuing a counterclaim.
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] This case involves a claim brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the sum of RM28,790.00, along with interest, allegedly owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in connection with a renovation project. The Defendant had engaged the Plaintiff to carry out the necessary works for the project.
[2] However, the Plaintiff's failure to complete the project within the stipulated two-month period caused the Defendant to hire a third party and incur additional costs for the incomplete work. Therefore, the Defendant has also filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for RM19,911.90, along with interest.
[3] There were four witnesses who testified during the trial, as follows, where the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively called two witnesses:
Plaintiff's case
a) PW1: En Mohamad Zulhilmi, director/scaffolding inspector for the Plaintiff;
b) PW2: En Mohd @ Mohamad, monitoring the work at the site as requested by the Plaintiff and representative of Vertigo Tech;
Defendant's case
c) En Muhammad Shazwan, projek manager of the Defendant; and
d) En Abdul Wahab, projeck manager of Merak Signature.
[4] After the full trial, this court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim and allowed Defendant's counterclaim with costs.
B. Plaintiff's Case And Submission
[5] The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant to carry out works related to a renovation project for a period of two months, commencing on 16 August 2023, at Malaysian Refining Company Sdn Bhd (MRCSB) office in Sungai Udang, Melaka (hereinafter referred to as "the Project"). The scope of work and mutual agreement between both parties included the following:
a) The Plaintiff was to provide general workers/helpers for the renovation works under the direction of the project/site manager and in accordance with the agreed-upon methods;
b) The general workers/helpers were required to work according to the specified hours and days, based on the timeline of the Project; and
c) The Plaintiff was responsible solely for supplying necessary safety equipment and ensuring that the general workers/helpers had access to safe tools, while also complying with the terms and conditions of the project site regulations.
[6] At all material times, the Defendant issued three Purchase Orders dated 11 August 2023, 9 September 2023, and 10 October 2023. The Plaintiff also made purchases of materials for the Project as per the invoice dated 15 November 2023. However, as of the filing of this writ of summons and statement of claim until to date, the Defendant has failed to make payments for the works completed by the Plaintiff for the Project, despite the fact that the works were completed in accordance with the parties' agreement.
[7] The Plaintiff averred that the details of the work and/or equipment supplied by the Plaintiff for completing the Project were as follows:
a) Supply of manpower (helpers) and/or labor;
b) Supply of hand tools, such as hand drills, extension cables, grinders, fan blowers, and DB 240V;
c) Provision and completion of electrical works, including the demolition of electrical cables and other related electrical works, as specified in the Defendant's Purchase Order dated 10 October 2023; and
d) Procurement of materials for the Project.
[8] Although the Defendant has made 80% payment for the Plaintiff's labor supply and truck services, the Defendant has, to date, failed to pay the remaining 20% of the total labor cost. Additionally, the Defendant has failed and/or neglected to make payments for the Purchase Orders it had issued.
[9] The Plaintiff alleged that the outstanding amounts owed by the Defendant for the Plaintiff's work throughout the Project are as follows:
[10] As a result of the Defendant's failure to make payments to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has also faced difficulties in settling payments to suppliers, vendors, subcontractors and other parties involved in the execution of the Project. The Plaintiff has made several attempts to contact the Defendant to
