MINSYAM SDN BHD CHOO LIN (M) SDN BHD

MINSYAM SDN BHD CHOO LIN (M) SDN BHD

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: plaintiff failed to prove a periodic tenancy after expiry of the fixed-term lease and failed to discharge the burden of proof; defendant lawfully entered a new tenancy with Rizq Teja Resources and is not liable for alleged trespass or interference...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-12B-34-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: MINSYAM SDN. BHD.; Defendant/respondent: CHOO LIN (M) SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 September 2025
Case Number
BA-12B-34-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (landlord and Tenant / Tort) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Lease, Periodic Tenancy, Possession and Trespass, Locus to Sue (corporate Internal Disputes), Injunctions, Burden of Proof on Damages, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Contract Landlord and Tenant Tort Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Breach of Lease Periodic Tenancy +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MINSYAM SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff/appellant

CHOO LIN (M) SDN. BHD.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (landlord and Tenant / Tort) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a periodic tenancy arose after expiry of fixed-term lease due to continued payment of rent
  2. 2 Whether defendant breached covenant by entering new lease with third party and thereby caused trespass or loss to plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff had locus/authority to sue given internal director disputes and lack of company resolutions

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: plaintiff failed to prove a periodic tenancy after expiry of the fixed-term lease and failed to discharge the burden of proof; defendant lawfully entered a new tenancy with Rizq Teja Resources and is not liable for alleged trespass or interference with plaintiff's assets; plaintiff lacked sufficient corporate authority/unanimity among directors to represent the company for continuation of tenancy, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the factual findings of the trial court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 8 April 2025 is affirmed