The contracts involving design services are void when the provider lacks mandatory registration, preventing them from recovering fees, while clients can still claim damages for defects regardless of contract illegality.

A. Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court. The Appellant was the Defendant, whereas the Respondent was the Plaintiffs.

[2] This appeal was filed by the Defendant against part of the decision of the Sessions Court dated 29 April 2024 in the Civil Suit No: BA-A52C-35- 10/2020.

B. Brief Background

[3] On 31 May 2018, the Plaintiffs had approached the Defendant for interior design and renovation services for a project located at No 30, Jalan DU 6/5, Ambrosia@Kinrara Residensi, Taman Damai, Utama, 47180 Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the Property).

[4] Defendant submitted a quotation along with the terms and conditions for interior design consultancy services for the Property through a letter dated 18 July 2018 (ID Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 1st Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the ID Contract on 16 October 2018.

[5] In or around September 2018, the Defendant was requested to submit a quotation along with terms and conditions for construction works related to the extension of the Property. The Defendant submitted a revised quotation along with the terms and conditions for the construction works related to the extension of the Property through a letter dated 26 September 2018 (Extension Works Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 1st Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the Extension Works Contract on 16 October 2018.

[6] In or around December 2018, The Defendant was requested to submit a quotation along with terms and conditions for interior fit-out works of the Property. The Defendant submitted a revised quotation along with the terms and conditions for the interior fit-out works of the Property through a letter dated 19 December 2018 (Interior Fit-Out Contract). Plaintiffs, through the 2nd Plaintiff, agreed to, accepted, and signed the Interior Fit-Out Contract on 20 December 2018.

[7] Altogether, the Defendant was engaged by the Plaintiffs to carry out 3 contracts (collectively known as "the project"):

i. ID Contract - contract sum of RM55,000.00

ii. Extension Works Contract - contract sum of RM520,000.00

iii. Interior Fit-Out Contract - contract sum of RM588,750.00

[8] However, the contract sum for the Extension Works Contract and the Interior Fit-Our Contract were subsequently reduced to RM416,160.00 and RM506,110.00 respectively as the scope of works were reduced in these contracts.

[9] Apart from these 3 contracts, the Defendant had also requested the Plaintiffs to pay an additional sum of RM42,000.00 for the Architect's and Engineer's services which included but not limited to the application for the procurement of CCC from the local authorities.

[10] Additionally, there were 10 variation order (VO) claims by the Defendant for this Project. The preliminary works were carried out by the Defendant on or around September 2018 and the understanding between parties was for the completion of the project to be before the Chinese New Year 2019 which was celebrated on 5 February 2019.

[11] The Defendant did not complete the project by 5 February 2019, however, the Plaintiffs had nevertheless moved in to the Property just before Chinese New Year 2019. The Defendant had resumed work at around end of February 2019. The extension works commenced on 26 February 2019 and was t