Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

BREACH OF CONTRACT – COURT FINDS EDGENTA IN BREACH: SUPPLYING USED LINENS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR UKM HOSPITAL

1. Summary and Facts

In Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia v Edgenta Facilities Management Sdn Bhd [2025] 11 MLJ 783, UKM entered a laundry services contract with Edgenta for PPUKM, requiring Edgenta to maintain a “five par” linen level – laundry service contract. UKM claimed Edgenta failed to supply new linens and imposed penalties of RM3,996,344.47 based on missing items, price per item, and days delayed. Edgenta argued the contract did not specify “new” linens, supplied a mix of linens, disputed the penalty formula, and alleged UKM increased linen requirements without notice, counterclaiming RM3.64 million for wrongful deductions.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant was contractually obligated to supply new linens rather than used or recycled linens.
• Whether the defendant’s counterclaim for allegedly wrongful deductions had any basis or merit.
• Whether the plaintiff’s penalty calculation method and amount were valid.

3. Court’s Findings

• The High Court allowed UKM’s claim for RM3,996,344.47 with interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing until full settlement and dismissed Edgenta’s counterclaim with costs.
• It was held that when a dispute arises from a contract, the entire contract must be interpreted considering its factual background, commercial purpose, and business nature to determine the parties’ intention using an objective approach.
• Although the contract did not expressly include the word “new,” the Court found that both parties intended and understood that only new linens were required.
• The Court admitted extrinsic evidence under proviso (b) to section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950, holding that parol evidence was admissible to clarify a contractual silence where it was not inconsistent with the written terms.
• Key documents, including meeting minutes and correspondence, showed that the defendant had repeatedly acknowledged its obligation to supply “new linens” and sought extensions of time to meet this requirement.
• The penalty formula was valid, as the phrase “until the five par requirements is fulfilled” clearly included a time element.
• The counterclaims by the Defendant lacked evidence and appeared tactical after receiving the Plaintiff’s penalty demand.

4. Practical Implications

This decision affirms several important legal principles including:
• Even if a contract is silent, courts may infer intent from surrounding evidence and commercial sense.
• Parol evidence rule allows clarification of silent terms (s 92(b) Evidence Act 1950).
• Penalty clauses are enforceable if they serve a legitimate commercial purpose and are reasonable.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH