Malaysia Case Law

23 May 2025

PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ABRAHAM A/L P. JOSEPH

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-59-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-12BNCvC-59-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's factual findings that plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation were reasonable: the key email documents were not proven by their makers and were inadmissible hearsay or only ID, the trial judge properly accepted unchallenged oral evidence (SD1) explaining the degree, there was no pleaded contractual requirement for accredited qualifications, plaintiff's conduct affirmed the contract, and absent proven fraud wages could not be reclaimed; defendant validly entitled to salary in lieu for three months; appeal dismissed and trial judgment affirmed.

• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Rescission of contract
• Notice and payment in lieu
• Admissibility of documentary hearsay
• Appellate review of factual findings

29 Jan 2021

EONTAT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 620797-M) BUDGET KITCHEN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 736501-A)

Citation

BA-12BC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-12BC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ID20 was hearsay and inadmissible; the trial judge correctly accepted qualified expert evidence that the defendant's piling works were inadequate; applying the established two-tests for implied terms the court implied a term that piling works must enable the warehouse to be fit for occupation and use, the defendant breached that implied term, lack of planning permission under the TCPA does not render the contract void under s24 Contracts Act 1950, and there was no basis to disturb the Sessions Court's award; appeal dismissed with costs.

• Implied terms
• Breach of contract
• Admissibility of documentary hearsay
• Expert evidence (s45 evidence act)
• Planning permission (tcpa)
• Assessment of damages

26 Jul 2019

JAN DE NUL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

WA-22C-77-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22C-77-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff entitled to indemnity under the composite CAR policy because the RFI was both sudden and unforeseen, the policy was composite so plaintiff could claim independently, and the defendant failed to prove any exclusion or breach of conditions precedent causal to the loss; the proximate cause was not established by defendant as defective workmanship or faulty design and plaintiff's expert evidence of static liquefaction was at least as probable; net recoverable loss assessed at RM15,935,866 with interest and costs.

• Contractors all risks
• Policy interpretation
• Conditions precedent
• Exclusions
• Res judicata
• Issue estoppel

CAPITAL INSURANCE BERHAD V CHEONG HENG LOONG GOLDSMITHS (KL) SDN BHD

Citation

CAPITAL INSURANCE BERHAD V CHEONG HENG LOONG GOLDSMITHS (KL) SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

Although a judge may have jurisdiction to convert garnishee proceedings into a writ action, converting them sua sponte to enable a judgment creditor who is not a beneficiary to sue under the insured's policy was incorrect; the respondent lacked locus standi, the Public Trustee's approval did not authorize respondent's solicitors to sue on the policy, the adjusters' report (P9) did not prove the robbery and thus no debt was due from insurer to insured to be garnished, and the Court therefore allowed the insurer's appeal restoring the trial judge's dismissal.

• Locus standi
• Garnishee proceedings
• Conversion of garnishee to writ
• Admissibility of documentary hearsay
• Authority of public trustee to litigate
• Standard of appellate review on findings of fact