TOPZ SDN BHD 1. ) OISHII WASABI SDN BHD 2. ) TAN DEE HON 3. ) TAN LEE TING

TOPZ SDN BHD 1. ) OISHII WASABI SDN BHD 2. ) TAN DEE HON 3. ) TAN LEE TING

The written Tenancy Agreement, containing an 'as is where is' clause and an Entire Agreement clause, constitutes the complete record of the parties' obligations; therefore alleged oral promises are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The Landlord validly exercised its contractual discretion to fix the commencement date as 1.10.2022; the Tenant's purported termination was therefore wrongful and a material breach entitling the Landlord to forfeit deposits, claim unexpired rent of RM1,295,000.00, interest and costs, and to enforce the Personal Guarantees and Indemnities.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-336-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (suit 336); Defendant (suit 656) Landlord: Topz Sdn Bhd; Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Tenant: Oishii Wasabi Sdn Bhd; Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Director / Guarantor: Tan Dee Hon; Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Director / Guarantor: Tan Lee Ting
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-336-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Tenancy Dispute / Final Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Suit 336 allowed; Suit 656 dismissed
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Entire Agreement Clause, Forfeiture of Deposit, Personal Guarantees and Indemnities, Commencement Date Discretion, Admissibility of Digital Evidence, Failure to Call Witness / Adverse Inference, Conflict of Interest of Counsel
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Evidence Law Civil Procedure Parol Evidence Rule Entire Agreement Clause Forfeiture of Deposit Personal Guarantees and Indemnities +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Topz Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (suit 336); Defendant (suit 656) Landlord

Oishii Wasabi Sdn Bhd

Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Tenant

Tan Dee Hon

Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Director / Guarantor

Tan Lee Ting

Defendant (suit 336); Plaintiff (suit 656) Director / Guarantor

Procedural Posture

Commercial Tenancy Dispute / Final Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged oral agreements formed part of the written Tenancy Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Tenancy Agreement's 'as is where is' clause and Entire Agreement clause exclude extrinsic oral promises
  3. 3 Whether the Landlord validly fixed the commencement date exercising contractual discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The written Tenancy Agreement, containing an 'as is where is' clause and an Entire Agreement clause, constitutes the complete record of the parties' obligations; therefore alleged oral promises are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The Landlord validly exercised its contractual discretion to fix the commencement date as 1.10.2022; the Tenant's purported termination was therefore wrongful and a material breach entitling the Landlord to forfeit deposits, claim unexpired rent of RM1,295,000.00, interest and costs, and to enforce the Personal Guarantees and Indemnities.

Court Disposition

Suit 336 allowed; Suit 656 dismissed

Orders

  • Suit 336 is allowed
  • Suit 656 is dismissed