IMAGE FACADE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

wa-22c-63-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 June 2025 • WA-22C-63-09/2023 • 48 min read
7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Outcome

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dihuraikan di atas, tuntutan Plaintif ditolak dan tuntutan balas D2 dibenarkan sebanyak RM25,277,397.53 dengan faedah pada kadar 5% setahun daripada tarikh penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian penuh.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22c-63-09-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Sama ada sebarang kelewatan atau penangguhan tarikh masuk tapak adalah berpunca daripada kegagalan D2 untuk mendapatkan KM daripada pihak berkuasa tempatan - Sama ada EoT dan tarikh siap baharu telah diberikan oleh D2 bagi penangguhan tarikh masuk tapak - Sama ada kelewatan kerja Plaintif di tapak adalah disebabkan oleh kerja-kerja tanah yang perlu dilakukan oleh Plaintif - Sama ada kerja-kerja tanah yang terlibat adalah berpunca daripada kesilapan D2 dalam menentukan lokasi pembuangan tanah - Sama ada EoT telah diberikan oleh D2 bagi kerja-kerja tanah tersebut - Sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut pengurangan Bayaran Kerja Tanah berjumlah RM2,992,772.00 - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan oleh D2 dalam meluluskan Perakuan Kelambatan dan Lanjutan Masa bagi Projek tersebut. Jika “YA”, sama ada kelewatan tersebut telah menjejaskan perlaksanaan kerja di bawah Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada D2 telah gagal atau ingkar untuk membuat bayaran progresif mengikut Perakuan Interim yang dikeluarkan oleh Jurukur Bahan bagi Projek tersebut - Jika pembayaran telah dibuat, sama ada pembayaran adalah lewat iaitu melebihi tempoh 30 hari setelah Perakuan Interim diperakui oleh Pegawai Penguasa di bawah Klausa 28(6), Kontrak tersebut - Jika jawapan kepada Isu 9 ialah “YA”, sama ada kelewatan pembayaran telah diremedikan dengan perlanjutan masa yang diluluskan oleh D2 - Sama ada Plaintif telah melanggari Klausa 51, Kontrak tersebut iaitu gagal melakukan kerja dan/ atau obligasinya dengan teratur dan tekun dan telah meninggalkan tapak projek - Sama ada D2 telah melanggari Klausa 55, Kontrak tersebut iaitu lewat dalam membuat bayaran Tuntutan Progresif Interim kepada Plaintif. Jika “YA”, sama ada perlanggaran kontrak oleh D2 secara langsung “adversely affects the Works” di bawah Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada surat Plaintif bertarikh 5.7.2021 dan Notis Penamatan bertarikh 13.7.2021 merupakan satu penamatan yang sah dan teratur di bawah Klausa 55, Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada Notis Penamatan D2 bertarikh 2.9.2021 merupakan satu penamatan yang sah dan teratur di bawah Klausa 51, Kontrak tersebut - Sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut – (a) bayaran untuk Bayaran Kemajuan No. 37 berjumlah RM2,236,763.36; (b) bayaran Wang Tahanan berjumlah RM1,359,288.85 menurut Klausa 13.0, Kontrak tersebut; (c) kerugian keseluruhan kontrak sebanyak 15% berjumlah RM4,077,866.55 - Sama ada Perakuan Kos Penamatan bertarikh 18.8.2023 adalah sah - Sama ada terdapat Perakuan Kerja Tidak Siap dikeluarkan terhadap Plaintif - Sama ada Gantirugi Tertentu dan Ditetapkan wajar dikenakan terhadap Plaintif. Jika “YA”, sama ada Gantirugi Tertentu dan Ditetapkan berjumlah RM270,634.65 wajar dikenakan terhadap Plaintif - Sama ada D2 berhak ke atas jumlah sebanyak RM25,405,333.91 bagi bayaran yang perlu dibayar oleh Plaintif di bawah Perakuan Kos Penamatan tersebut

Practice Areas

Construction Law Contract Damages

Judges (1)

Aliza binti Sulaiman Delivered

Counsel (5)

Ezrilaw Firm Firm Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor Counsel Plaintiff Farah Nabilah Binti Shaharuddin Counsel Plaintiff Shazreen Nadia Zulkipli Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

IMAGE FACADE CONSTRUCTION Sdn Bhd Plaintiff KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA Defendant Kerajaan Malaysia Defendant

Case Significance

Illustrates how the construction court resolves competing claims of lawful termination on a government building contract, allowing the Government's counterclaim where the contractor failed to prove delay was attributable to the employer.

This High Court (Construction Court) decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia, concerns a dispute arising from the termination of a contract for the construction of a secondary school in Selangor. Image Facade Construction Sdn Bhd, the plaintiff contractor, sued the Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education and the Government of Malaysia (the second defendant) for a certain sum and general damages, alleging that its termination of the contract had been lawful; the Government counterclaimed for damages arising from what it said was its own lawful termination of the contract. The disputes concerned, among other things, whether delays in site possession were caused by the second defendant's failure to obtain the necessary approvals from the local authority, whether extensions of time and new completion dates had been granted, whether the plaintiff's earthworks delays flowed from an error by the second defendant in fixing the soil-disposal location, and whether the second defendant had delayed in approving certificates of delay and extension of time or failed to make progress payments in accordance with interim certificates. After a full trial, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove its claim on a balance of probabilities, while the second defendant had succeeded on its counterclaim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and allowed the Government's counterclaim in the sum of RM25,277,397.53 with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement. On costs, weighing the length of the trial and the number of witnesses and documents against the plaintiff's submission that a lower figure would suffice, and applying the factors in Order 59 rule 16 of the Rules of Court 2012, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM60,000.00 to the second defendant. The judgment illustrates how the construction court allocates responsibility for delay and termination on a government building contract.

What was the outcome of the contractor's claim and the Government's counterclaim?

The court dismissed the contractor's claim, finding it unproved on a balance of probabilities, and allowed the Government's counterclaim in the sum of RM25,277,397.53 with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement.

What costs were ordered?

Applying Order 59 rule 16 of the Rules of Court 2012 and weighing the length of trial and volume of evidence, the court ordered the contractor to pay costs of RM60,000.00 to the second defendant.

Cases Cited (7)

MY (7)
[1988] 2 MLJ 261 [1995] 2 MLJ 257 [2001] MLJU 32 [2010] 3 CLJ 474 [2011] 1 CLJ 755 [2014] 1 MLJ 718 [2014] 5 CLJ 186

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22c-63-09-2023)