SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2488

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PE SETIA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22C-6-03/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Gobinath Karuppan,Kee Jing Min ,Respondent Advocate: Austen Emmanuel Pereira,Chow Chen Yie

The lawful termination of a contract by a contractor does not entitle the subcontractor to claim loss of profit if performance issues warrant termination; validated assessments dictate payment entitlements.

Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 71 and 51.1(b) - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) - Claim for unpaid sums and loss of profit due to alleged unlawful termination of contract - Court found that the Plaintiff's termination was valid; therefore, the claim for loss of profit was not allowed. Payment due to Plaintiff affirmed following work valuation by JMS. Reference to various backcharges and entitlements. (Paras 61, 62, 63).

(B) Adjudication Proceedings - Preliminary objections regarding the validity of adjudication decisions under CIPAA disallowed as interim decisions allow for concurrent litigation. (Paras 26, 27).

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose after Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s contract for failure to perform as per specifications and timeline. The Plaintiff claimed unpaid sums for work completed and challenged the grounds for termination. (Paras 1-18).

Findings of Court:
Plaintiff to be paid RM23,354,170.67 for work done, with interest imposed; costs awarded for the suit. (Paras 61, 62, 63).

Issues: Validity of backcharges; entitlement of the Plaintiff to unpaid sums and loss of profit; legality of terminations; implications of adjudication decisions on ongoing litigation. (Paras 24, 25).

Ratio Decidendi: Termination by Defendant was lawful; the Plaintiff held responsible for delays and non-performance; payments assessed through validated Joint Measurement Sheet (JMS) hold precedence in adjudicating claims for unpaid work. (Paras 58, 59).

Result: Plaintiff granted judgment in the amount claimed, with interest and costs awarded.

Table of Content
1. dispute over non-payment for subcontractor work. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of contractual agreements and sums. (Para 3 , 4)
3. termination of contract due to alleged delays. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. claims for outstanding balance and deductions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. measurement and re-measurement of works. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. acknowledgment of certain backcharges. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. allegation of unlawful contract termination. (Para 17 , 18)
8. defendant's defense on payments and backcharges. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. claims regarding quantum meruit are barred. (Para 22 , 23)
10. preliminary objections raised regarding procedures. (Para 24 , 25)
11. court’s stance on adjudication decisions. (Para 26 , 27)
12. verification of revised contract documentation. (Para 29 , 30)
13. finality of interim payment certificates vs jms. (Para 31 , 32)
14. importance of evidence in payment claims. (Para 33 , 34)
15. assessment and reliability of the jms. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
16. determining entitlement to disputed backcharges. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
17. assessment of contract termination validity. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
18. defendant's justification for contract termination. (Para 58 , 59)
19. final judgment on the claims made. (Para 60)
Sumathi Murugiah JC:

A. Introduction

[1] This is a typical dispute between the Defendant (main contractor) and the Plaintiff (sub-contractor) in relation to non-payment for work done. The dispute between them escalated to the Plaintiff's contract being terminated and had led to the Plaintiff having to file this suit against the Defendant.

[2] The Plaintiff's action against the Defendant is to claim for the balance payment due for the works done together with the retention sum and loss of profit arising from the termination which the Plaintiff disputes as unlawful termination.

B. Brief Background

[3] Pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance of Tender dated 18 February 2016, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) appointed the Defendant as the main contractor for upgrading works for Federal Road 5 (FR5) from Tanjong Karang to Sabak Bernam, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the Project") for the contract price of RM708,928,000.00 (including the total GST of RM40,128,000.00).

[4] Via a Letter of Award dated 28 April 2016 (LOA), together with the Sub-contract Agreement, the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as the sub-contractor to perform Pavement Works and Road Furniture works under the Project for the contract sum amounting to RM104,117,800.40 (including total GST amounting to RM5,893,460.40). Subsequently, the parties revised the contract sum to RM91,844,175.22.

[5] The Defendant had made some payments for the Plaintiff's works in the project and had subsequently terminated the Plaintiff's contract on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to complete the work within the time frame given, as per the required specifications and performance required.

[6] The Defendant had backcharged / deducted from the Plaintiff's payment sums due to the Defendant's advance payments, stamping of contract documents, consultant's overtime claim, patching of potholes, roadline marking, road stud, compensation for accident and fine for breaching Site's Safety Requirements.

[7] The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendant in order to claim for the alleged balance sums which were not paid for the works done and against the backcharges / deductions which it disagrees. The Plaintiff also challenged the termination of its contract by the Defendant as unlawful.

[8] Due to the unlawful termination, the Plaintiff is entitled for the balance payments for works done under the contract and for loss of profit due amounting to a total of RM24,937,230.22 [(RM23.354,170.67 + RM 1,583,059.55) inclusive of GST and Retention Sum of RM4,592,208.75].

[9] Based on the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the Defendant has paid to the Plaintiff together with the Retention Sum a total of RM62,521,926.86 inclusive of all the backcharges / deductions for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top