STELLARIS LAW · CLIENT EXPERIENCES
What clients say about the work at Stellaris Law
Feedback from property owners, contractors, and developers who have used the firm's construction law services across Sabah and Malaysia.
Back to Home8+
Years in Practice
120+
Clients Advised
4.8
Average Rating
34
Adjudications
SECTION 01 — CLIENT FEEDBACK
Feedback from clients across construction matters
Tan Kah Heng
Property Developer · Kota Kinabalu
"We brought them in to review a PAM 2018 contract before we signed with a main contractor. The advisory note they produced was detailed and actually useful — not the usual vague commentary. They flagged three payment-related clauses we would have overlooked. Worth the fee many times over."
April 2025 · Contract Review
Rozaiman bin Bakri
Main Contractor · Sandakan
"We had a disputed EOT claim that had been dragging for almost a year. Ahmad Junaidi's team reviewed the records, told us honestly which parts of our position were strong and which were shaky, and then took it to adjudication. We got a decision within the statutory period. Communication throughout was clear."
March 2025 · Delay Claim / Adjudication
Patricia Lim Sook Yen
Nominated Subcontractor · KK
"As a smaller subcontractor, we were not sure what to do when the main contractor started withholding our progress payments without a valid reason. Stellaris Law walked us through the CIPAA process clearly. Our payment claim was served and the matter settled before the adjudication reached a hearing."
April 2025 · Payment Claim
Harjit Singh Balbir
Developer · Penampang, Sabah
"The dispute programme handled our matter at the High Court level after adjudication. Shirley prepared a thorough case with the programming expert. I appreciated that they were straightforward about costs at each stage and did not push us toward proceedings when there were settlement options available."
February 2025 · Dispute Programme
Faizal Jamil
M&E Contractor · Labuan
"Called them about a variation order dispute I had been ignoring for too long. They gave me an honest read of my position — some parts were strong, others less so. The fee structure was explained upfront which I found reassuring. The negotiation settled the VO dispute at a reasonable figure after around six weeks."
March 2025 · Variation Order Dispute
Christina Wong Mei Lin
Property Owner · Kota Kinabalu
"I was a private property owner dealing with a contractor dispute over completion and defects. I did not know much about construction law. Rajan took time to explain the contract provisions and my options in plain language. The written summary they provided was something I could actually follow."
April 2025 · Contract Advisory
SECTION 02 — CASE STUDIES
Selected matter summaries
CHALLENGE
A developer in Kota Kinabalu was presented with a bespoke contract from an overseas developer that contained unusual defect liability and retention provisions. The client's project manager had flagged concerns but could not interpret the legal implications.
APPROACH
The team conducted a full read of the contract alongside the letter of award and appendix schedules. The advisory note identified four clauses that departed significantly from standard Malaysian practice, with plain-language explanations suitable for the project team.
OUTCOME
The client used the advisory note to negotiate amendments to two of the four flagged clauses before signing. The retention period was shortened from 24 to 12 months and a specific liquidated damages cap was introduced. Work completed within 8 days of instruction.
CHALLENGE
A Sandakan-based contractor had RM 280,000 in certified progress claims withheld by the employer over a period of three certification cycles, without a valid payment response under the PAM form.
APPROACH
After reviewing the certification record and the employer's correspondence, the team identified that the payment response provisions had not been properly complied with. A CIPAA payment claim was served and negotiations began in parallel.
OUTCOME
The employer entered settlement negotiations after the adjudication was commenced. A negotiated payment of RM 252,000 was agreed before the adjudication hearing — approximately 90% of the claimed sum. Total timeline from instruction: 11 weeks.
CHALLENGE
A main contractor faced a substantial counter-claim from an employer for liquidated damages, while also pursuing its own delay claim for loss and expense attributable to employer-caused delays. The matter involved complex programming analysis across an 18-month project.
APPROACH
The team instructed a programming expert and a quantum expert, coordinated their evidence, and prepared full submissions for the adjudication. Senior counsel was brought in for the hearing. The matter took 22 weeks from instruction to decision.
OUTCOME
The adjudicator found substantially in the contractor's favour — the employer's liquidated damages claim was dismissed and the contractor's loss and expense claim was awarded at approximately RM 480,000. The employer's application to set aside the decision was unsuccessful.
CONTACT
Reach the team directly
PHONE
+60 88-274 6831
info@stellari
ADDRESS
Lot 6, Likas Square
Jalan Istiadat, 88400 KK
HOURS
Mon–Fri: 8:30–17:30
Sat: 9:00–13:00
CREDENTIALS
Professional standing
Malaysian Bar
All practitioners admitted and in good standing. Governed by the Legal Profession Act 1976.
Sabah Law Society
Members of the Sabah Law Society, admitted to practise in Sabah and the Federal Court.
CIPAA Adjudication Training
Team members have completed formal CIPAA adjudication procedure training and maintain current CPD.
Discuss your construction matter with the team
An initial call carries no obligation. The team responds to all enquiries within one working day.
Request Consultation