Retention fund 
Lecture week 6
Retention fund is established by way of 
cumulative deduction of a stipulated percentage 
(normally 5%) from the sum otherwise due for 
certification of payment. 
Retention fund is commonly inserted in std form 
contract as a mechanism to protect the employer 
against possible contractors’ default
In absence of contractors’ default, one moiety 
(normally half) of the accumulated retention fund 
is eventually released at practical completion 
and the balance after completion of making good 
of defects.-30.6 (c) and (d). 
The employer has a fiduciary duty to the 
contractor as he acted as trustee of the retention 
fund- cl 30.6 (a).
Henry Boot Building Ltd v The Croydon Hotel & 
Leisure Co.Ltd 
The plf (contractor) sought a mandatory 
injunction for the money to be deposited in a 
separate bank account. 
Held: There was no subsistent obligation 
[employer]to appropriate and set aside the 
retention money.
Garnishment proceeding 
This procedures involves an action by a third 
party other than the contractual parties (privy), 
normally the creditor, to get the court order for 
the money owed to the creditor from the third 
party who actually holds money for the debtor. 
E.g Creditors/sub contractors claimed from the 
employer for the retention fund which is hold by 
the employer on behalf of the main contractor.
The third party has to be within the jurisdiction of 
the court. 
A preliminary order is made to establish the 
availability of the third party’s debt for the 
purpose and then an order nisi is shall be issued 
by the court and served on the third party 
requiring the garnishee to show cause, i.e to 
dispute the order if he has valid grounds.
The third party in the proceedings is known as 
‘garnishee’. 
Payment by the garnishee to the creditor 
constitute as a valid discharge of the 
garnishee liability to the debtor. 
This order is available under Subordinate 
Court Rules 1980, Order 33, rule 8 of 
Garnishee Proceedings.
Lee Kam Chun v Syarikat Kukuh Maju Sdn. Bhd 
(Syarikat Perumahan Kerajaan Sdn Bhd, Garnishee) 
The plf is the sub contractor . He seek to recover money 
due to him from the main contractor by way of 
garnishee order on the retention fund held by the 
employer.The contract between the employer and the 
main contractor adopted the PAM 69 form. As a result 
of the garnishee to show cause order being served on 
the employer (the garnishee), the employer terminated 
the main contractor(def) contract and appointed another 
contractor to complete the work.
To avoid the garnishee order, the employer claimed 
that the retention money was not available on three 
grounds; 
1. The employer has rights towards the fund as 
damages due to termination of the contract 
2. The architect had not issued that were 
necessary for the release of the retention 
fund 
3. Cl 30(4)(a) of the contract allowed recourse 
of the retention money where sums were 
recoverable under terms of the contract.
Peh Swee Chin J: The retention funds belonged 
beneficially to the contractor and thus were a form of 
accrued debt, even though payment of the money to 
them was subject to certification by the architect…in 
principle, they were suitable for attachment by way of 
garnishee order. Although there were competing claims 
for recourse to the retention fund, in this case the plf 
had the prior claim as the order [garnishee] had been 
served prior to the def’s termination of contract.

Retention fund

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Retention fund isestablished by way of cumulative deduction of a stipulated percentage (normally 5%) from the sum otherwise due for certification of payment. Retention fund is commonly inserted in std form contract as a mechanism to protect the employer against possible contractors’ default
  • 3.
    In absence ofcontractors’ default, one moiety (normally half) of the accumulated retention fund is eventually released at practical completion and the balance after completion of making good of defects.-30.6 (c) and (d). The employer has a fiduciary duty to the contractor as he acted as trustee of the retention fund- cl 30.6 (a).
  • 4.
    Henry Boot BuildingLtd v The Croydon Hotel & Leisure Co.Ltd The plf (contractor) sought a mandatory injunction for the money to be deposited in a separate bank account. Held: There was no subsistent obligation [employer]to appropriate and set aside the retention money.
  • 5.
    Garnishment proceeding Thisprocedures involves an action by a third party other than the contractual parties (privy), normally the creditor, to get the court order for the money owed to the creditor from the third party who actually holds money for the debtor. E.g Creditors/sub contractors claimed from the employer for the retention fund which is hold by the employer on behalf of the main contractor.
  • 6.
    The third partyhas to be within the jurisdiction of the court. A preliminary order is made to establish the availability of the third party’s debt for the purpose and then an order nisi is shall be issued by the court and served on the third party requiring the garnishee to show cause, i.e to dispute the order if he has valid grounds.
  • 7.
    The third partyin the proceedings is known as ‘garnishee’. Payment by the garnishee to the creditor constitute as a valid discharge of the garnishee liability to the debtor. This order is available under Subordinate Court Rules 1980, Order 33, rule 8 of Garnishee Proceedings.
  • 8.
    Lee Kam Chunv Syarikat Kukuh Maju Sdn. Bhd (Syarikat Perumahan Kerajaan Sdn Bhd, Garnishee) The plf is the sub contractor . He seek to recover money due to him from the main contractor by way of garnishee order on the retention fund held by the employer.The contract between the employer and the main contractor adopted the PAM 69 form. As a result of the garnishee to show cause order being served on the employer (the garnishee), the employer terminated the main contractor(def) contract and appointed another contractor to complete the work.
  • 9.
    To avoid thegarnishee order, the employer claimed that the retention money was not available on three grounds; 1. The employer has rights towards the fund as damages due to termination of the contract 2. The architect had not issued that were necessary for the release of the retention fund 3. Cl 30(4)(a) of the contract allowed recourse of the retention money where sums were recoverable under terms of the contract.
  • 10.
    Peh Swee ChinJ: The retention funds belonged beneficially to the contractor and thus were a form of accrued debt, even though payment of the money to them was subject to certification by the architect…in principle, they were suitable for attachment by way of garnishee order. Although there were competing claims for recourse to the retention fund, in this case the plf had the prior claim as the order [garnishee] had been served prior to the def’s termination of contract.