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

2025 MarsdenLR 1879

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SEIE ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOVERMENT OF MALAYSIA – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-21C-5-08/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:James Ding,Woo Xiao Thong ,Respondent Advocate: Anisah Normah,Maswirani Mahmud

JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] This suit involves various claims by the main contractor against the employer in relation to the construction of the Rembau Hospital in Negeri Sembilan.

[2] One of the contractor's main grouses was the performance of the works by one of the subcontractors which was nominated by the employer. Hence, one of the issues which had to be determined by the court was whether the employer can be made liable for the delay in the project which was caused by the Nominated Subcontractor ('NSC').

[3] After having considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and written submissions and clarifications by the learned counsels representing the parties, the court allowed the plaintiff's claim in the sum of RM18,155,150.80 out of the total claimed amount of RM21,455,331.54.

[4] In the Notice of Appeal filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that the plaintiff is appealing against part of my decision in respect of:

(a) back charges which were wrongfully imposed upon the plaintiff by the defendant in relation to electricity supply by Tenaga Nasional Berhad ('TNB') in the sum of RM653,726.73; and

(b) all loss and expense claims Nos 1 to 7 for the NSC in the sum of RM2,778,980.89 which was deducted.

[5] Meanwhile, in the Notice of Appeal filed by the defendant, the defendant is appealing against part of my decision on:

(a) liability where:

(i) the defendant was held culpable for delays in the works for the Project which were due to design defects;

(ii) the defendant was wrong in issuing Certificate of Non-Completion ('CNC') No 2 and in not allowing Extension of Time ('EoT') No 8;

(iii) the Certificate of Practical Completion ('CPC') dated 10 October 2019 was issued late to the plaintiff; and

(iv) liquidated ascertained damages ('LAD') were wrongly imposed against the plaintiff; and

(b) quantum where the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff damages as follows:

(i) LAD in the sum of RM1,981,455.00;

(ii) claim for losses between the issuance of CNC No 2 and CPC in the sum of RM436,561.52;

(iii) claim for Variation Works in the sum of RM1,941,665.37;

(iv) claim for idling cost in the sum of RM1,312,348.91;

(v) claim for loss and expense for EoT Nos 1 to 7 in the sum of RM12,292,883.00; and

(vi) claim for additional costs for the delay in the issuance of the Certificate of Making Good Defects ('CMGD') in the sum of RM190,237.02.

[6] These are my full grounds of judgment for purposes of the appeals as above mentioned.

Salient Facts

[7] The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia and having its business address at D-16-G, Jalan Atmosphere, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor. The Plaintiff is a contractor of building, civil and infrastructural works.

[8] The Defendant is the Government of Malaysia, represented by Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia ('JKR'), and the Plaintiff's employer for the project known as "Cadangan Hospital Rembau, Negeri Sembilan (76 Katil) Fasa 2 — Kerja Bangunan Dan Lain- Lain Kerja Berkaitan" ('Project').

[9] On 2 August 2013, the Defendant issued the "Surat Setujuterima Tender" to the plaintiff to inform that the plaintiff's tender for the Project for the sum of RM96,969,582.25 was accepted by the defendant.

[10] Pursuant to the Letter of Award dated 25 October 2013 ('LoA'), the plaintiff was appointed as the main contractor for the Project. On the same date, the parties executed the contract based on the "Condition of Contract To Be Used Where Bills of Quantities Form Part of the Contract", PWD Form 203A (Rev. 1/2010) ('Contract').

[11] The appointment of the NSC was based on PWD 203N (Rev 1/2010).

[12] The plaintiff's applications for EoT which were allowed are as follows:

(a) No 1 from 8 September 2016 to 29 December 2017;

(b) No 2 from 29 December 2017 to 18 April 2018;

(c) No 3 from 18 April 2018 to 15 July 2018;

(d) No 4 from 15 July 2018 to 3 October 2018;

(e) No 5 from 3 October 2018 to 18 December 2018;

(f) No 6 from 18 December 2018 to 3 February 2019; and

(g) No 7 fr


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
whatsapp-icon Back to top