DELICATE BUILDERS SDN. BHD. v INTIGA SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

A construction appeal in which the High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sum awarded on the claim to RM103,769.20, and upheld the dismissal of a counterclaim for variation and back-charge sums that were unsubstantiated by instructions, quotations and invoices.

This High Court (Kuala Lumpur) decision is a civil appeal from the Sessions Court in a construction-related dispute between a builder and a company. In the Sessions Court the trial judge had, on 25 August 2023, allowed the respondent's claim for RM172,719.62 with interest at 5% per annum and costs, and had dismissed the appellant's counterclaim for RM360,691.17 with costs. The appellant appealed to the High Court against those decisions.

Having considered the record of appeal, the comprehensive written submissions of the parties and a Common Scott Schedule, together with the oral clarifications of counsel, the High Court allowed the appeal only in part, in respect of the sum awarded on the respondent's claim, reducing the amount allowed following the appeal to RM103,769.20. The issues in dispute included whether the delay in completing the project was caused by the defendant, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to back-charge various sums against the defendant, including a sum for the appointment of a replacement sub-contractor, a sum for scaffolding, and a sum for overtime for a stone installer, as well as whether the defendant was entitled to a balance amount for work done.

On the counterclaim, the court examined the cross-examination of the defendant's witness, who agreed among other things that there was no proof of the plaintiff's instruction to carry out variation works, that the additional anchor bolts requested by the consultant engineers were necessary to strengthen the frames, that the defendant had not submitted a quotation for the variation orders, that there had been no opportunity for a joint inspection, and that the amount claimed in the counterclaim was not substantiated by invoices and delivery orders. It also noted discrepancies between the amounts pleaded in the defence, the amounts submitted after trial and the figures in the payment and progress claims. On those findings the court's revised disposition adjusted the award on the claim while otherwise upholding the outcome below. The judgment illustrates the appellate scrutiny of back-charges, variation claims and the documentary support required for a construction counterclaim.