Back
2013 MarsdenLR 1070
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SPATIAL VENTURES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TWINTECH HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCC-493-04/2012]
An assessment for restitution on a quantum meruit basis requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the actual value of work done, independent of contractual agreements.
Headnote:(A) Damages - Assessment - Quantum Meruit - The Plaintiff's claim was for RM1,521,484.00 on a quantum meruit basis, concerning project management services for two land development contracts; however, the Plaintiff failed to prove work done or the value thereof. (Paras 12, 24, 33, 34, and 38)
(B) Legal Principle - The correct measure for damages on a quantum meruit basis is to ascertain the actual value of work done, not limited by contractual rates. (Paras 24 and 35)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff was appointed to manage two separate land development projects, but both projects were abandoned, leading to a dispute over the amount due for work. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had not proven its claim despite invoicing for services performed.
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff did not sufficiently prove the damages or the connection of the work done to the Plaintiff as a separate entity, resulting in the dismissal of the claim.
Issues: The core issues included whether the Plaintiff demonstrated the work done and if damages could be assessed based on the alleged professional fees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff must independently prove the work done with adequate evidence; reliance on contractual terms alone was insufficient.
Result: Claim dismissed; nominal damages of RM2,500.00 awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consent judgment sets claims for damages. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 11) |
| 2. factual background of the claim (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. engagement letters outline project management details. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 16) |
| 4. plaintiff submits claims based on quantum meruit. (Para 13 , 14 , 21) |
| 5. arguments presented by the parties (Para 15 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. defendant argues on fee apportionment. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. quantum meruit claims require proof of actual work and value. (Para 24 , 25 , 34) |
| 8. court's reasoning on quantum meruit (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 33) |
| 9. evidence lacking to substantiate claims. (Para 30 , 32 , 36) |
[1] This is an appeal by the Defendant against the decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 15 April 2013, assessing damages on the Plaintiff's claim in the total sum of RM25,300,000.00 (RM25.3 million) together with costs of RM8,000.00. The assessment of damages was conducted pursuant to a consent judgment entered between the parties on 29 December 2012 ('the Consent Judgment') the terms of which are as follows:-
(i)The Defendant concedes to the Plaintiff's claim only in liability with the quantum of damages to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar;
(ii)The Defendant is required to pay damages to the Plaintiff which will be assessed by the Deputy Registrar; and
(iii) No order as to costs.
Salient Facts
[2] Pursuant to two letters of engagement dated 16 February 2008 and 16 February 2009 respectively, relating to two separate pieces of land proposed to be developed, the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant as the lead management consultant responsible for the project management works as well as co-ordinating the services of the other consultants within the consortium. To this end the consortium consultants included the Defendant, the Architect namely one Spatial Design, the civil and structural engineer, one Jasamurni Konsult, the mechanical and electrical engineer, one Leecon Perunding and the quantity surveyor, one Perunding Kos CSS.
[3] It was a term of both these letters of engagement that the total professional fee chargeable by the consortium as a whole would be six per cent (6%) of the total construction cost.
[4] It was a further term that all payments would be made to Spatial Venture Sdn Bhd.
[5] The letters of engagement then go on to set out the individual scope of work of each of the consultants, namely the work to be done which may be summarised briefly as follows:-
(a) Project management was to be conducted by the Plaintiff whose primary function was to co-ordinate the various consultants;
(b) Architectural work was to be carried out by Spatial Design Sdn Bhd;
(c) Civil and Structural work was to be carried out by Jasamurni Konsult;
(d) Mechanical and electrical engineering work to be carried out by Leecon Perunding; and
(e) Quantity surveying by Perunding Kos CSS.
[6] Under cl 5 of the letters of engagement there was provision for termination as well as the postponement or abandonment of the project. In the instant case the projects on both pieces of land were abandoned. Accordingly cl 5.15 provides that the consultants are to be paid for all services performed prior to receipt of the notification of abandonment.
[7] According to cl 5.16, entitled 'Stage Completion & Progress payment of the project' it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that progress payment for the project would be made in accordance with the table set out in the said clause namely:-
Stage of completion & Progress payment of the project
[8] The Plaintiff and the other consultants commenced work or services on the said project in or around March 2009. Pursuant to this, approval was obtained from the Majlis Perbandaran Kajang in March and December 2008 respectively for each piece of land. Approvals were procured from the Fire & Rescue Department similarly in April and June 2009.
[9] Thereafter the Defendant appointed a contractor, namely one Pembinaan Purcon Sdn Bhd to commence work on the project on both pieces of land
