Amanah Raya Berhad v XXXX (WA-22NCVC-91-02/2017)

High Court of Malaysia14 Dec 2023

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg S/N KcoWRJLrl0uxfPyErerUg

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 14 Dec 2023
Case number: WA-22NCVC-91-02/2017
Coram: YA Dato' Indera Mohd Arief Emran Bin Arifin
Practice area: Contract Act-ARIS project- breach of contract- termination of contract - extension of time- interpretation of contract terms -delay in the implementation of the Aris project-no written notice that were issued by the Defendant in accordance with clause 2.2 and clause 38.1 of the Contract- Expert evidence-evidence of Defendant’s expert was not challenged by the Plaintiff’s counsel during cross-examination-An expert need not merely be based on academic experience but could be assessed based on his or her experience within the relevant industry-Plaintiff is bound by the FSDs, the Plaintiff cannot now add new features or add any changes unless these were clearly stated in the FSDs- Whether Defendant exercise their rights to apply extension of Contract in accordance with the terms of the Contract-The express terms must be complied with, and mere informal discussions is insufficient- Failure of Defendant to deliver the project-the application for an extension of time in writing was not undertaken by the Defendant-Plaintiff failed to issue notice to terminate the Contract and seek liquidated damages-Performance of bond- failure to comply
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 18 Jan 2024
Source ID: 4416ca29-eb92-4b97-b17c-fc84adefab52

Catchwords

Contract Act-ARIS project- breach of contract- termination of contract - extension of time- interpretation of contract terms -delay in the implementation of the Aris project-no written notice that were issued by the Defendant in accordance with clause 2.2 and clause 38.1 of the Contract- Expert evidence-evidence of Defendant’s expert was not challenged by the Plaintiff’s counsel during cross-examination-An expert need not merely be based on academic experience but could be assessed based on his or her experience within the relevant industry-Plaintiff is bound by the FSDs, the Plaintiff cannot now add new features or add any changes unless these were clearly stated in the FSDs- Whether Defendant exercise their rights to apply extension of Contract in accordance with the terms of the Contract-The express terms must be complied with, and mere informal discussions is insufficient- Failure of Defendant to deliver the project-the application for an extension of time in writing was not undertaken by the Defendant-Plaintiff failed to issue notice to terminate the Contract and seek liquidated damages-Performance of bond- failure to comply

Parties

AMANAH RAYA BERHAD - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
XXXX - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Content

Catchwords