MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v 1. ) PEMBINAA LEEPING 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Foo Kee Leang 5. ) Lim Soon Peng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahri Bin Abu Bakar

wa-22c-39-05-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 April 2024 • WA-22C-39-05/2020 • 51 min read

54 cases cited (0 SG, 54 foreign)

Catchwords

Whether there exists any contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and D1 for the supply of labour for the Westin Project - Whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay D1 for all the services rendered under the terms of the three LoA and the alleged supply of labour agreement for the Westin Project - Whether D1 has carried out the works and its Progress Claims are valid - Whether D1 is entitled to the amounts as stated in its Progress Claims - Whether D2, D3, D4 and D5 had conspired, combined and acted in concert to submit D1’s Progress Claims with the intention to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Plaintiff - Whether D2, D3, D4 and D5 have breached their contractual duties - Whether the corporate veil of D1 should be lifted to impose liability against D4 and D5 - Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as stated in paragraph 53 of the SoC - Whether D1 is entitled to its counterclaim against the Plaintiff - In the alternative, whether D1 is entitled to claim for reasonable value of services performed or benefited by the Plaintiff for the work done for the Project under the principle of quantum meruit

Judges (1)

Aliza binti Sulaiman Delivered

Parties (7)

MRCB BUILDERS Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Chai Yee Hin Defendant Chan Kah Wai Defendant Foo Kee Leang Defendant Lim Soon Peng Defendant Pembinaa Leeping Defendant Zulbahri bin Abu Bakar Third Party

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 92

Cases Cited (54)

MY (54)

[1949] 1 MLJ 150 [1968] 2 MLJ 45 [1969] 1 MLJ 135 [1972] 2 MLJ 229 [1986] 2 MLJ 124 [1999] 6 MLJ 652 [2006] 3 MLJ 1 [2006] 6 MLJ 229 [2009] 2 MLJ 546 [2010] 1 MLJ 597 [2010] 5 MLJ 394 [2010] 9 MLJ 224 [2011] 1 CLJ 1016 [2011] 2 MLJ 585 [2011] 4 MLJ 393 [2012] 2 CLJ 1046 [2012] 5 MLJ 515 [2012] 8 MLJ 734 [2013] 7 MLJ 408 [2013] 8 MLJ 533 [2014] 5 MLJ 145 [2014] MLJU 1858 [2015] 1 MLJ 656 [2015] 1 MLJ 99 [2015] 3 CLJ 1100 [2015] 5 MLJ 1 [2015] 7 CLJ 584 [2015] MLJU 185 [2015] MLJU 2383 [2015] MLJU 992 [2016] 1 MLJ 115 [2016] 2 CLJ 563 [2016] 3 MLJ 797 [2016] 7 CLJ 760 [2016] MLJU 820 [2017] 3 MLJ 281 [2017] 5 MLJ 273 [2017] 7 CLJ 641 [2017] MLJU 1734 [2018] 10 CLJ 189 [2018] 4 CLJ 438 [2018] 6 MLJ 103 [2018] 6 MLJ 761 [2019] 1 CLJ 461 [2020] MLJU 1001 [2021] 10 CLJ 238 [2021] 7 MLJ 144 [2021] MLJU 1332 [2022] 9 MLJ 391 [2022] MLJU 1353 [2023] 11 MLJ 933 [2023] 2 MLJ 338 [2024] 10 MLJ 72 [2024] 2 CLJ 837

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22c-39-05-2020)