Askey Media Technology Sdn. Bhd. v Savelite Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant(s): Askey Media Technology Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin Ibrahim
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin

• A contract was entered into for the construction of a factory, stipulating a completion date and a daily rate for liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) for delay.
• The Superintending Officer (SO) certified a delay in completion, granting an extension of time (EOT) for part of the delay and imposing LAD for the remaining period.
• The High Court awarded the plaintiff the certified LAD amount but dismissed claims for loss of profit and indemnity, leading to cross-appeals by both parties.

• Whether time was of the essence of the contract, particularly in light of the presence or absence of express extension of time (EOT) provisions.
• Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to prevent either party from making their claims or contentions.
• The applicability and interpretation of Sections 56, 74(1), and 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 concerning claims for liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) and other losses.

• The Court affirmed that time was of the essence of the contract, based on the express contractual provisions and the principle of business common sense, rejecting the argument that the absence of an express EOT clause would negate this.
• The Court held that Sections 56(3) and 74(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 were inapplicable where the contract contained express liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) provisions, thus Section 75 CA, as a specific provision, governed the claim for damages.
• The Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's award of LAD as reasonable compensation under Section 75 CA, but varied the commencement date for interest on the award to account for the Superintending Officer's granted extension of time.