BYPASS

The subcontractor wins an adjudication against the main contractor, and asks the employer to pay him the awarded amount.  The employer says it does not owe money to the main contractor, because it has claims against the main contractor after terminating the main contract.  The main contractor disputes the termination.  Will the courts – in the subcontractor’s direct payment application – decide who is right and who is wrong in the main contract dispute in order to ascertain whether money is owed to the main contractor (and hence can be paid directly to the subcontractor)?  The Court of Appeal dealt with this recently in JDI Buildtech (M) Sdn Bhd v Danga Jed Development Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2024] CLJU 373. Continue reading “BYPASS” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IV – BACK TO THE PAST?

In the recent case of Tekun Nasional Sdn Bhd v Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd [2021] 8 AMR 427, the Federal Court (“FC“) appears to conflate the concepts under the old and new law as to how section 75, Contracts Act 1950 is to be applied to liquidated damages clauses.

Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IV – BACK TO THE PAST?” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES III – MORE CONFUSION

This final part of the Cubic Puzzle series highlights further confusion arising from the Cubic case, due to discrepancies between the principles enunciated by the FC and their purported application to the facts. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES III – MORE CONFUSION” →

THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES II – THE PROPORTIONALITY CONFUSION

Following the Cubic Puzzle I, this post highlights the confusion over what is the test to decide if the agreed amount payable on breach (“damages clause amount”) is “reasonable compensation” under section 75, Contracts Act 1950. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES II – THE PROPORTIONALITY CONFUSION” →