DATAMICRON SYSTEMS SDN BHD v DATAKRAF SOLUTION SDN BHD

wa-22ncvc-417-07-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 29 May 2025 • WA-22NCvC-417-07/2022

Catchwords

Definition of “man-day” – Whether applicable for calculation of damages when the contract is silent on how damages for breach is to be assessed – Teaming Agreement – Plaintiff prepared proposal for Defendant to bid for government contract upon Defendant’s undertaking to subcontract to Plaintiff – Defendant awarded government contract by the National Cyber Security Agency (“NACSA”) and did appoint the Plaintiff as its subcontractor – Plaintiff played major role in performing the Government contract – Plaintiff attended every meeting with Government agencies and attend to every aspect of the project – Defendant is to only supply the hardware for installation of software created by the Plaintiff – Government agency NACSA terminated contract due to unforeseen reasons – Defendant terminated subcontract but failed to pay Plaintiff – Defendant also failed to disclose payment or other consideration that it received from the Government agency – No default by Plaintiff – Whether Defendant has breached contract with Plaintiff – Damages to compensate Plaintiff – Whether S.71 Contracts Act 1950 / Quantum Meruit is applicable – Whether Plaintiff may claim damages based on man-day calculation method – Privity of contract – Plaintiff has no cause of action against NACSA – No statute in Malaysia similar to UK Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Practice Areas

Definition of “man-day”

Judges (1)

Gan Techiong Delivered

Parties (2)

DATAKRAF SOLUTION Sdn Bhd Defendant DATAMICRON SYSTEMS Sdn Bhd Plaintiff

Case Significance

DATAMICRON SYSTEMS SDN BHD v DATAKRAF SOLUTION SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 29, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-417-07-2022). The case was decided by Gan Techiong.

What was the outcome of DATAMICRON SYSTEMS SDN BHD v DATAKRAF SOLUTION SDN BHD?

DATAMICRON SYSTEMS SDN BHD v DATAKRAF SOLUTION SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated May 29, 2025. The case was heard by Gan Techiong. See the full judgment for details.