Friday, September 12, 2025

Common Pitfalls in Malaysian Construction Contracts—and How to Avoid Them


When construction projects go wrong, they usually don’t collapse overnight—they unravel clause by clause. This guide distills the most frequent pain points we see in Malaysian construction contracts and how employers, contractors, and consultants can manage them proactively.

Key Takeaways (TL;DR)

  • Variation and omission rights are never automatic—if it’s not in the contract (and followed strictly), it’s risky.

  • Concurrent delay usually provides time, but not money (unless your contract states otherwise).

  • Time bars on claims that completely shut the courthouse door may be void, but notice requirements are generally enforceable—miss them and you may lose your claim.

  • Pay-when-paid clauses are void under CIPAA—cash flow must keep moving.

  • Latent defects get a knowledge-based extension (3 years from discovery), but there’s a 15-year longstop.

  • Design liability tracks who designed it and the professional standard of care.

  • Force majeure needs clear drafting; “it’s uneconomic” is not enough.  

1) Variations: Power with Procedure

An employer can only vary the works if the contract expressly allows it, and everyone must follow the process to the letter: written instruction by an authorised person, types of permissible variations, and valuation method (contract rates/fair valuation).
Risk tip: Contractors who proceed on verbal “please just do it” requests without a valid clause or instruction risk non-payment—at best, you may rely on quantum meruit.

Checklist

  • Variation instruction form + signer with authority

  • Scope clearly described

  • Valuation route agreed upfront

  • Contemporaneous records (photos, diaries, quantities) 

2) Omission of Work: Narrow Lane

Omissions also require an express clause and strict compliance. Use it for genuine scope reduction, not to replace the contractor with a cheaper alternative mid-stream—doing so invites dispute.

3) Implied Terms: Rare, but Real

Courts imply terms sparingly. Fitness-for-purpose may arise where the buyer relies on the supplier’s skill for goods of a kind the supplier ordinarily provides.
Good faith? Malaysian courts consistently decline to imply a general duty of good faith—draft what you need, don’t assume it.

4) Concurrent Delay: Time, Not Money

Where employer-risk and contractor-fault delays run together, the contractor typically gets extension of time (EOT) but not loss & expense, unless your contract says otherwise.
Drafting tip: Define concurrent delay and set out the financial consequences to avoid arguments later.

5) Limitation Periods: Know Your Clock

  • Contract claims: 6 years from breach (Peninsula Malaysia; similar regimes in Sabah/Sarawak under their Ordinances).

  • Latent defects (non-personal injury): 3 years from date of knowledge, longstop 15 years from accrual (not applicable in Sabah/Sarawak).
    Practical move: Keep a defects timeline and trigger a limitation diary for long-tail risks.

6) Time Bars & Notices: Enforceable Formalities

Clauses that totally prevent suing or unreasonably curtail enforcement can be void. But notice provisions (e.g., “notify EOT within 28 days”) are generally upheld.
Discipline: Submit timely, content-complete notices with supporting records.

7) Unforeseen Ground Conditions: Contract First

Allocation depends on your drafting. If silent, courts weigh site investigations, information provided, foreseeability, and conduct.
Mitigate: Conduct and record pre-award site reviews; clarify who owns the risk in the contract; add a mechanism for time/cost if conditions differ materially.

8) Change in Law: Don’t Leave It to Chance

Well-drafted contracts give EOT and sometimes money for legislative changes. If silent, outcomes depend on which party must comply and the justice of the case.
Clause to add: Define “law,” set baselines, valuation method, and prompt notice.

9) Intellectual Property in Design

If the contract is silent, IP usually stays with the creator.
Solution: Include licenses for construction, operation, maintenance, and future alterations, plus payment-linked IP rights.

10) Suspension by Contractor: Clause Required

No general right to suspend. If permitted, follow the exact preconditions (notice, cure period). Wrongful suspension can be repudiatory.

11) Termination: Contractual Grounds + Common Law

Standard grounds include non-payment, abandonment, and insolvency. In the absence of clauses, a serious repudiatory breach can justify termination. Serve notices properly—mode, timing, and content matter.

12) Termination for Convenience: Use with Care

Uncommon and scrutinised. Must be exercised in good faith; don’t use it to swap to a cheaper contractor without consequence. Address profit on unperformed works expressly to avoid uncertainty.

13) Force Majeure vs. Frustration

  • Frustration (statutory): Contract becomes impossible/illegal—automatically ends.

  • Force majeure (contractual): Temporary relief/extension per your clause.
    Not enough: “It’s uneconomic” or “market downturn.” Draft event lists, notice steps, mitigation, and termination options.

14) Third-Party Rights: Privity Still Rules

Non-parties can’t enforce the contract, but may sue in negligence if proximity and reasonableness exist (e.g., MCs for common property defects).
Workaround: Use collateral warranties or direct agreements in financed or high-stakes projects.

15) Direct Agreements & Collateral Warranties

Not universal in Malaysia but increasingly common in infrastructure, commercial, and energy deals. Funders and forward purchasers want step-in rights, a duty of care, and cure periods. Plan for them at the tender stage.

16) Set-Off: Mind the Drafting Trap

Common-law set-off can be limited or excluded by contract. Ironically, if an employer drafts some set-off rights, a court may treat those as the only ones available.
Contractor tip: Insist on limits against interim certificates and define adjudication-safe payment flows.

17) Concurrent Liability in Contract & Tort

Duties in contract and negligence can co-exist. Courts are reluctant to add tort duties where the contract is comprehensive—but they will where justice and proximity demand (e.g., building defects impacting MCs).

18) Ambiguity: Contra Proferentem Bites

Ambiguous wording is construed against the drafter. Clear drafting beats clever argument—define processes, time frames, authorities, and valuation.

19) Terms at Risk of Being Unenforceable

  • Pay-when-paid / pay-if-paid: Void under CIPAA s.35.

  • Total exclusion of liability / ousting the court: Risks being void (Contracts Act s.29).

  • LDs requiring proof of actual loss: Not the law—LDs stand if they’re a genuine pre-estimate and reasonable.

  • Clauses that sidestep statutes (e.g., blocking CIPAA or shortening limitation): Likely void.

20) Design Liability & Professional Standards

Responsibility follows the designer. In traditional delivery, contractors building to employer designs may be absolved if they complied. In Design & Build, the contractor owns design risk.
Standard: “Reasonable care and skill” of a competent professional—plus statutory duties (OSHA, Architects Act, REA).

21) Decennial Liability? Not Mandated

Malaysia has no statutory 10-year decennial liability. Protection for latent defects arises via the knowledge-based extension (3 years) with a 15-year longstop. Consider latent-defects insurance on major projects.

Practical Drafting Toolkit (Save This)

  • Authorities & Notices: Who can issue instructions? In what form? Within what time?

  • Variations & Omissions: Scope, pricing ladder (rates → analogous rates → fair valuation), records.

  • EOT & Delay Costs: Define concurrent delay outcomes; require programmes and delay analysis method.

  • Ground Conditions: Baseline info, investigation regime, change-mechanism, shared risk.

  • Change in Law: Definition, trigger, notice, entitlement.

  • Payments & Set-Off: CIPAA-compliant mechanism, interim certification sanctity, narrow set-off.

  • Design & IP: Allocation of design risk; IP licences for build-operate-maintain-alter.

  • Security: Bonds, retention, step-in rights, collateral warranties where relevant.

  • Dispute Resolution: Adjudication (CIPAA), arbitration, escalation ladders, seat, rules.

  • Compliance: OSHA, statutory approvals, record-keeping for limitations and defects.

Final Word

In construction, clarity is cash flow. The more precisely you draft processes (authority, time, form, valuation), the fewer surprises—and the stronger your position in adjudication, arbitration, or court.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on Malaysian law and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific contract or dispute, consult a qualified Malaysian practitioner.





Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Dispute Resolution in Malaysia’s Construction Industry

 


The construction industry in Malaysia is one of the nation’s most dynamic sectors, but it is also prone to disputes. Payment delays, project variations, defective works, and breaches of contract often give rise to conflicts between contractors, subcontractors, employers, and consultants. To address these issues, Malaysia has developed a robust legal framework for dispute resolution, with a combination of statutory adjudication, arbitration, litigation, and mediation.

This blog provides a detailed overview of how construction disputes are resolved in Malaysia, with insights into statutory adjudication under CIPAA, arbitration procedures, recognition of international awards, court processes, and remedies for building safety claims.

1. Statutory Adjudication: The CIPAA Framework

The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), which came into force in 2014, was introduced to address chronic cash flow problems in the construction industry. Payment delays and non-payments were threatening not only large infrastructure projects but also small subcontractors further down the supply chain.

CIPAA establishes a mandatory adjudication scheme for written construction contracts executed in Malaysia. The hallmark of this mechanism is its speed and efficiency — most disputes are resolved within 95 working days, unless parties agree to an extension.

If a losing party fails to comply with an adjudication decision, the winning party has several enforcement options:

  • Enforcing the adjudication decision in the High Court as though it were a judgment.

  • Suspending or reducing work until payment is made.

  • Seeking direct payment from the project principal.

Importantly, adjudication decisions can also form the basis for winding-up proceedings, as clarified in cases such as Likas Bay Precinct Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Sdn Bhd [2019] and Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd v Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn Bhd [2024].

2. Arbitration in Construction Disputes

Arbitration remains the most common method of resolving construction disputes in Malaysia, especially under standard form contracts such as PAM, PWD, IEM, and AIAC. These contracts typically contain arbitration clauses, making arbitral proceedings the default forum for disputes.

The Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), established under the Arbitration Act 2005, is the designated body administering arbitration. Its rules are closely aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, ensuring consistency with international standards.

Arbitration in Malaysia often includes:

  • Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses (such as negotiation or mediation before arbitration).

  • Procedural timelines established by the arbitral tribunal.

  • Final and binding arbitral awards are enforceable in Malaysia and abroad.

The Federal Court in Juara Serata Sdn Bhd v Alpharich Sdn Bhd [2015] reinforced that multi-tiered conditions must be complied with before commencing arbitration.

3. Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards

Malaysia ratified the New York Convention in 1985, enabling recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Under Sections 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act 2005, international awards are enforceable as though they were domestic awards, provided no grounds exist for refusal.

Malaysian courts adopt a pro-arbitration stance, limiting judicial interference in arbitral awards. For example, in Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor, the Federal Court underscored the importance of respecting arbitral finality to prevent undermining the arbitration process.

4. Litigation: Court Proceedings in Construction Disputes

Where arbitration clauses are absent, bespoke contracts and lower-value projects may end up in court. The jurisdiction depends on the claim amount:

  • Magistrates’ Court: up to RM100,000

  • Sessions Court: RM100,001 – RM1 million

  • High Court: above RM1 million

First-instance hearings generally conclude within 9–12 months, with appeals taking another 6–8 months at each level. Final appeals to the Federal Court are granted only on matters of public importance or unsettled points of law.

Additionally, under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, certain foreign judgments can be registered and enforced in Malaysia, provided reciprocity exists.

5. Mediation: A Growing Alternative

While not mandatory, mediation is increasingly encouraged by Malaysian courts as a cost-effective and amicable means of resolving disputes. Since 2011, court-annexed mediation has been available at no cost to litigants, facilitated by judges or judicial officers.

Parties may mediate at any stage of their dispute, even if their contract does not explicitly provide for it. Mediation is valued for its flexibility, informality, and ability to preserve business relationships.

6. Remedies for Building Safety-Related Claims

Several statutes govern safety standards and building compliance in Malaysia:

  • Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA) – ensures workplace safety and health.

  • Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 & Uniform Building By-Laws (UBBL) – regulate building design, construction, and safety.

  • Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) – promotes safe practices and industry training.

  • Fire Services Act (FSA) – protects against fire risks, requiring fire certificates and safety equipment in high-risk buildings.

These laws provide statutory remedies for parties affected by safety-related issues in construction projects.

Conclusion

Malaysia’s construction dispute resolution system offers a multi-layered framework:

  • Quick payment remedies under CIPAA

  • Binding and internationally enforceable arbitration awards

  • Traditional litigation pathways for court enforcement

  • Flexible mediation options to promote settlement

Together, these mechanisms strike a balance between speed, fairness, and enforceability. For construction stakeholders — from contractors to developers — understanding these processes is essential for protecting rights and ensuring project continuity.

Types of Construction Contracts in Malaysia: A Legal Guide for Developers and Contractors

Legal Insights You Need to Know When it comes to construction projects in Malaysia, the choice of contract is not just about pricing and tim...