Sub-contractors' remedies upon breach of the main contract

• المؤلف الرئيسي: Ejau, Ruth Lua
• التنسيق: أطروحة
• اللغة: الإنجليزية
• منشور في: 2017
• الموضوعات: QE Geology
• الوصول للمادة أونلاين: http://eprints.utm.my/78506/1/RuthLuaEjauMFAB2017.pdf

In any construction industry, it always involves various work activities be it just a simple house renovation up to the construction of a mega project and the work need to be sub-contract to others. Sub-contractors enter into a contract with the main contractor to take up portion of the work. In the industry it consists of two categories of sub-contractor which are the nominated sub-contractor and the domestic sub-contractor. In the event of breach of the main contract, the sub-contractors would be one of the many parties who is affected due to this circumstances. Albeit there are standardised forms such as PWD 203N and CIDB Model Terms which is readily available for the use of the sub-contractors, is it really helpful in seeking remedy. It seems that these sub-contractors are playing David against Goliath since they are just a small party going against a powerful party. This research is trying to find out what are the types of contractual, non-contractual and equitable remedies that are available for the sub-contractors to claim due to the breach of the main contract. This research has been done based on cases which have similar circumstances in which there is breach of main contract. The outcome from analysing the cases are, it reaffirms the objective of this research. It can be seen from over the years that the remedies granted to the claimant are liquidated and unliquidated damages, Mareva injunction, specific performance, rescission and restitutionary. Based on the case analysis, there are more claims made based on contractual and equitable remedy. With this also it proves that court exercising equity in ensuring justice can be done. Apart than that, most remedy that had been granted by the court is due to there is a clear relationship such as the assignment of tasks. The result out of the outcome gives an impression that these sub-contractors do still have the right to claim for what is own to them.