1. ) MY DENTAL CARE SDN. BHD. 2. ) ASLAM BACHO 3. ) MDC ASIA LINK BERHAD 4. ) ZEEFITRI SANIAH BINTI BIDIN 1. ) AZAHAR BIN YAAKUB @ ARIFFIN 2. ) NORASMAHAN BT MURIDAN 3. ) SUDIRMAN BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 4. ) SITI RABIAH BINTI NASRUDIN 5. ) ROZIA

1. ) MY DENTAL CARE SDN. BHD. 2. ) ASLAM BACHO 3. ) MDC ASIA LINK BERHAD 4. ) ZEEFITRI SANIAH BINTI BIDIN 1. ) AZAHAR BIN YAAKUB @ ARIFFIN 2. ) NORASMAHAN BT MURIDAN 3. ) SUDIRMAN BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 4. ) SITI RABIAH BINTI NASRUDIN 5. ) ROZIA

The Mutual Agreement constituted an acknowledgement of indebtedness by D1 and, based on the parties' conduct and contemporaneous correspondence, D1 was estopped and liable under that agreement such that summary judgment against D1 was properly entered; however D2, D3 and D4 were not parties to the Mutual Agreement and cannot be held liable under it due to the doctrine of privity, so summary judgment against them was improper and must be set aside.

Citation
BA-12ANCC-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; First Defendant: D1; Second Defendant: D2; Third Defendant: D3; Fourth Defendant: D4
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2026
Case Number
BA-12ANCC-32-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal by D1 dismissed; summary judgment against D1 affirmed. Appeals by D2, D3 and D4 allowed; summary judgment against D2, D3 and D4 set aside.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Privity of Contract, Mutual Agreement, Estoppel, Costs, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Equity Summary Judgment Privity of Contract Mutual Agreement Estoppel Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

D1

First Defendant

D2

Second Defendant

D3

Third Defendant

D4

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mutual Agreement is enforceable and gives rise to a cause of action against D1
  2. 2 Whether D2, D3 and D4 are liable under the Mutual Agreement or are protected by privity of contract
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given existence or absence of triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Mutual Agreement constituted an acknowledgement of indebtedness by D1 and, based on the parties' conduct and contemporaneous correspondence, D1 was estopped and liable under that agreement such that summary judgment against D1 was properly entered; however D2, D3 and D4 were not parties to the Mutual Agreement and cannot be held liable under it due to the doctrine of privity, so summary judgment against them was improper and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal by D1 dismissed; summary judgment against D1 affirmed. Appeals by D2, D3 and D4 allowed; summary judgment against D2, D3 and D4 set aside.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered by Sessions Court against D1 is affirmed
  • Summary judgment entered by Sessions Court against D2, D3 and D4 is set aside