Roz Mawar Rozain J:

DECISION

[1]On 10.12.2025 this Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for a summary judgment. The Defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding sum of RM5,982,199.58 owed to the Plaintiff and was given time until 31.12.2025 to settlement the said amount in full. Interest of 5% is to run from 1.1.2026 until full and final settlement. It was a straightforward application, so costs of RM5,000 was ordered to paid forthwith by the Defendant, subject to allocator.

Factual Matrix

[2]The Defendant issued a Letter of Acceptance/Award (LoA) dated 8.5.2018 to the Plaintiff as the main contractor for a project to construct a complex that comprised of a block of 15 storeys with a podium, and a building for depot of the vehicles. The Plaintiff accepted the said award on 17.5.2018.

[3]Both parties agreed that the Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 (with Quantities) formed part of the contract between them - Clause 22 of the LoA.

[4]The Plaintiff had completed the works as evidenced by the Certificate of Practical Completion on 20.9.2021. Subsequently, the Interim Certification (Final Payment) No. 41 was issued on 29.7.2024 in the sum of RM6,982,199.58 by KC Tan Architect pursuant to Clause 30 of the PAM Contract 2006 (the Final Certificate).

[5]On 26.7.2024, a meeting was held between the parties and it was mutually agreed that the Defendant was to settle the said outstanding sum of RM6,982,199.58 by way of four monthly instalments commencing from 15.8.2024 to 15.11.2024. This first proposal was formalized in writing vide a letter dated 1.8.2024.

[6]However, there were a series of correspondences between the parties and their respective solicitors to further negotiate the terms of payment of the said outstanding sum. A second proposal materialized on 8.10.2024 whereby the Defendant was to pay the amount owed to the Plaintiff by way of nine monthly instalments that was to commence from 31.10.2024 to 30.6.2025.

[7]That fell through so a third proposal was birthed. A letter dated 9.10.2024 from the Plaintiff’s former solicitors whereby the nine monthly instalments were to be made by post-dated cheques which were to be furnished to the Plaintiff before 24.10.2024. But, on 16.10.2024, the Defendant indicated it was not agreeable to the condition of furnishing post-dated cheques to the Plaintiff.

[8]The Plaintiff replied on 18.10.2024 that it was agreeable to the second proposal without the condition of forwarding the postdated cheques for the nine instalments. As such, for the outstanding sum of RM6,982,199.58 due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the payment schedule was as follows:

[9]Failure by the Defendant to comply with any of the nine instalments shall result in the full outstanding balance of RM6,982,199.58 being due and recoverable by the Plaintiff immediately (Settlement Agreement).

[10]Pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, the Defendant had made payments in respect of the first, second, third, and fourth instalments which totaled to RM1,000,000.00.

[11]Before the fifth instalment was due, the Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff on 26.2.2025 a revised twelve-month instalment plan commencing from 31.5.2025 to 30.4.2026 to settle the balance of RM5,982,199.58.

[12]The Plaintiff found that an unreasonable variation of the Settlement Agreement, so the Plaintiff rejected the variation on 28.2.2025. The Defendant was reminded to comply with the Settlement Agreement. Payment of the fifth instalment by 28.2.2025 was expected or the Plaintiff would enforce the default clause of the Settlement Agreement.

[13]The Defendant defaulted. The fifth instalment or any other instalment for that matter was not paid to the Plaintiff.

Assessment of Arguments of Parties

[14]The Defendant raised various purported issues rega