Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acknowledgement of debt

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2026

HAPPY CP COMPANY LIMITED (BERNIAGA DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA (CHOCO UP) BRIAN JOHNSON LOWE

Citation

WA-A52NCC-4120-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-4120-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The substituted service complied with the court order and Rules of Court by affidavit evidence; the defendant filed the application out of time without seeking an extension; the defendant failed to disclose a triable defence because of an unambiguous written acknowledgement of debt eliminating any bona fide dispute and rendering the arbitration clause irrelevant; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed with costs.
9 Mar 2026

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN OCTVILLE CONDOMINIUM OCTVILLE GOLF PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-103-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-103-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff met Order 14 prerequisites and established a running account with documentary evidence and written acknowledgements; defendant failed to demonstrate a bona fide triable defence or that the claim was statute-barred because s26 revived limitation by payments/acknowledgements; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for RM1,863,163.32 with interest and costs RM5,000.00.
18 Dec 2025

ALM TRADING SDN BHD CS NAM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court: the plaintiff's contemporaneous documentary evidence together with signed letters and part payments constituted acknowledgements under s.26(2) Limitation Act 1953, rendering the action not time-barred; the defendant's denials were unsubstantiated and its counterclaim lacked contractual basis and evidential support, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
17 Dec 2025

NTROUPE RESOURCES TEBOOK HOUSE SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-297-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-297-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Agreement imposed an express, unconditional obligation to pay RM4,000,000 according to a fixed schedule; Plaintiff performed and Defendant did not. There is no contractual term linking repayment to the Project or making repayment contingent on profit or project commencement. Defendant's correspondence amounted to acknowledgements of debt and its factual explanations (postponement, funds utilisation, potential third‑party claims) do not disclose a bona fide triable defence. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered.
7 Nov 2025

SARWAJA TIMUR SDN BHD TRENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-332-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-332-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to raise any credible triable issue; Plaintiff proved the debt by audited financial statements, contemporaneous email correspondence and part payments; the claim is a running account which crystallised when the Defendant was sold on 7.9.2023 and is therefore not time-barred; summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for RM 2,756,428.87, Defendant's striking out application dismissed, interest at 5% p.a. from judgment and costs RM 8,000 awarded to Plaintiff.
15 Aug 2025

FELIX RELOCATIONS (M) SDN BHD 1. ) IVS ITECHNICS (M) SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' VICNESVARAN a/l RAJAMANIKKAN 3. ) DATIN GIRIJA a/p SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-159-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-159-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the transfers were loans not investments because contemporaneous requests called them loans, there was no evidence of any investment structure or vessel purchases, partial repayments constituted acknowledgement of debt, D2 misrepresented the purpose of funds, and the corporate structure was used to conceal misuse; therefore D1 and D2 are jointly and severally liable for RM2,000,000 and the corporate veil is lifted to hold D2 personally liable.
31 May 2024

KEE HIN VENTURES SDN BHD 1. ) Great Partners Industries Ltd 2. ) APEX LEADER (HK) LTD 3. ) ONG WAN BING @ KIE TJHAN

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-646-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-646-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part: it held the High Court erred in applying the arbitral Award to bind the appellant and in awarding pre‑judgment interest to the Respondents in a manner inconsistent with the appellant's Articles of Association (Article 100); however the Court found the 31 March 2017 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of the debt under s.26(2) Limitation Act 1953, so the claim for the 2013 dividend was not time‑barred. The High Court's order awarding pre‑judgment interest was varied accordingly and other declaratory claims dismissed as set out in the…
2 May 2024

Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Acknowledgement by Plaintiff's letter dated 15.3.2007 restarted the limitation period so CIMB's foreclosure proceedings were within time; Plaintiff failed to invoke exclusive appeal remedy under s.418 NLC and cannot collaterally attack the Land Administrator's Order for Sale in this suit; gazettement alone did not bar the Order for Sale or auction because acquisition did not vest until Form K/memorial and formal possession; compensation award to the bidder who had fully paid was valid; no proximity existed to impose a duty of care on valuers to the Plaintiff and the valuation methodology was…
31 Oct 2023

DESIGNLINK CONSULTANTS SDN. BHD. TANAH MESTIKA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BL-A52NCvC-10-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A52NCvC-10-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found no triable issues because defendant had admitted acceptance and by its subsequent conduct (settlement letter, issued cheques, and confirmation of indebtedness) acknowledged the debt; defendant's later denials were estopped. Documentary evidence (invoices, account statements, correspondence) established the indebtedness and the agreed interest term. Therefore the plaintiff's Order 14 application succeeded and summary judgment was entered for the claimed sums with costs.
27 Jul 2023

RHB BANK BERHAD 1. ) LKW INDUSTRIAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE KOK WAI 3. ) MOEY MEI YOKE

Citation

WA-22NCC-451-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-451-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Fourth Offer merely restructured existing facilities and the guarantees expressly covered restructurings, the certificates of indebtedness were conclusive absent manifest error, the notice provisions allowed interest variations, and there were no triable issues; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiff and strike out of the counterclaim were justified.