Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance by conduct

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2025

1. ) MY DENTAL CARE SDN. BHD. 2. ) ZEEFITRI SANIAH BINTI BIDIN 3. ) ASLAM BACHO 4. ) MDC ASIA LINK BERHAD 1. ) MUHAMMAD FADLI BIN EMBONG 2. ) Aida Adlina Binti Mohamad 3. ) Dzulqarnain Bin Ahmad Iskandar Shah 4. ) Muhd Fadzli Amin Bin Muhd

Citation

BA-12ANCC-33-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-33-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Mutual Agreement was valid and binding because acceptance was effectively communicated by the parties' conduct and correspondence; the Mutual Agreement governs the plaintiffs' claim and obviates re‑litigation of background investment arrangements; summary judgment was appropriate because the defendants' challenges raised no triable issues of merit; the 3rd and 4th defendants cannot be held personally liable absent personal guarantees or proof of fraud.
27 Nov 2025

Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Terengganu (MPKT) MENSILIN GREEN ENERGY SDN. BHD.

Citation

TA-A52NCvC-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52NCvC-14-05/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the correspondence notifying rent and the defendant’s subsequent conduct (continued occupation after notification, making payments recorded by plaintiff, and failure to object plus a request for exemption) constituted implied acceptance of the rent terms and created an enforceable obligation; therefore defendant is liable to plaintiff for RM222,000 plus 5% interest from judgment and costs of RM7,000.
2 Apr 2024

ELECTROCORR ENGINEERING SDN. BHD DSE CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD

Citation

TA-B52NCvC-2-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B52NCvC-2-06/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant breached the Purchase Order by failing to pay milestone 1 and milestone 2 as agreed; the Plaintiff delivered materials and incurred costs and is entitled to recover outstanding milestone sums and costs of materials; the Defendant's counterclaim failed for lack of evidence and being outside the contract scope; costs awarded accordingly.
26 Jun 2023

Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence of parties' conduct, witness testimony and documentary/email material the Plaintiff established that services were performed and accepted by the Defendant and that the Defendant owed RM95,400.00; the trial magistrate’s adverse factual findings were disturbed because they were plainly wrong or reflected insufficient appreciation of the evidence, justifying appellate intervention.
8 Jun 2023

PUNCAK GENERASI (M) SDN. BHD. ADASFA SDN. BHD.

Citation

CA-A72NCC-164-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCC-164-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On balance of probabilities the court found the VSD failure occurred after the contractual warranty expired and no complaint was made during the warranty period; defendant's continued use constituted acceptance under s.42 Sale of Goods Act 1957, therefore plaintiff was not liable for the defect and was entitled to the outstanding purchase price while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
16 Jan 2023

1. ) Eco Hijau Semula Sdn Bhd 2. ) Greenbio Technology Sdn Bhd Mohd Najeib Bin Ahmad Walat (berniaga sebagai Pemilik Tunggal di bawah nama dan gaya 'Triple A Aura Resources')

Citation

BA-22C-17-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-17-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The four Letters of Award dated 7.11.2019 constituted binding agreements accepted by the Plaintiffs through unequivocal conduct (performance, procurement, attendance, invoices, progress reports); the Defendant was estopped from denying the contracts; the Defendant's termination letters were unlawful and constituted breaches on 5.1.2020; damages under s 74(1) Contracts Act 1950 are recoverable — the value of works was recoverable as arising in the usual course, and loss of profit was foreseeable and recoverable — therefore the Defendant must pay the specified sums, interest and costs.
3 Aug 2020

AGROMATE (M) SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 49545-K) FELCRA NIAGA SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 470602-W)

Citation

WA-22NCC-296-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-296-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

FIAM T&C were not incorporated; the interest term in invoices/delivery orders issued after contract conclusion was a unilateral term not accepted by the Defendant; alternatively the Plaintiff had waived the right to claim interest by conduct and is estopped from imposing it retrospectively; accordingly claim for late payment interest dismissed.
28 Jan 2020

GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. TIO JIT HONG (NO. K/P: 570226-04-5151) 2. CHAN WENG SUNG (NO. K/P: 741229-10-5109) 3. FONG MING JING (NO. K/P: 620202-05-5526) 4. KOH NGAT HOON (NO. K/P: 640209-10-5440) 5. LEE YEE YOONG (NO. K/P: 770507-14-5841)

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCC)-542-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCC)-542-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was properly entered because the plaintiffs demonstrated clear and undeniable claims supported by documentary evidence and payments; the defendant's conduct (accepting payments/partial gold) constituted acceptance of offers despite CPO wording; the plaintiffs had obtained Public Prosecutor consent under s54(3) AMLA so the claims were not statutorily barred; and there was no inordinate unexplained delay amounting to laches — consequently there were no triable issues and the High Court judgment awarding restitution and interest was affirmed.
LAM GOW & ANOR V. MAJU-TEKNO SDN. BHD. & ANOR.

Citation

LAM GOW & ANOR V. MAJU-TEKNO SDN. BHD. & ANOR.
Court

Malaysian court

The 25.19% reduction in land area was a substantial misdescription that defeated the purchasers' purpose; such a material misdescription entitled the plaintiffs to rescission despite the contractual compensation clause, and the court granted rescission, refund, interest and assessment of damages.