Malaysia Case Law

22 Jan 2024

1. ) Siva Kumar A/L Jeyapalan 2. ) AMMSA Property Sdn. Bhd. Firwas Sdn. Bhd PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K.RAGAVAN 2. ) Shoba A/p Govindasamy 3. ) Jasim Sura Puthucheary (D2 Dlm Tuntuan Balas Thevandran)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found negotiations were aborted, no binding SPA was concluded with Firwas, the defendants and associated agents acted fraudulently and in conspiracy, the caveat was wrongfully lodged; accordingly plaintiffs' claims and Thevan's counterclaim dismissed, Firwas's counterclaim allowed, removal of caveat ordered and damages (general, exemplary) and indemnity costs awarded.

• Specific performance
• Wrongful caveat
• Fraud and conspiracy
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Agency and ostensible authority
• Estoppel

14 Sept 2023

DTX ADVANCE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) ENG HONG ELECTRIC SERVICE 2. ) CHENG WENG KANG (didakwa sebagai individu dan sebagai rakan kongsi dalam Eng Hong Electric Service) 3. ) CHENG WEI CHIA (didakwa sebagai individu dan sebagai rakan kongsi d

Citation

PA-22C-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA-22C-9-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found a valid and enforceable contract existed between Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant based on quotations, revisions, emails, verified progress claims, meetings and part performance; 1st to 4th Defendants acted as agents for the 5th Defendant and were not personally liable except for an admitted RM85,000; the 5th Defendant's expert reports were discredited for lack of verification and procedural noncompliance; therefore 5th Defendant was ordered to pay RM1,839,319.45 with interest and costs and 1st-4th Defendants ordered to pay RM85,000 as admitted.

• Breach of contract
• Payment for construction works
• Agency and ostensible authority
• Admissibility and reliability of expert evidence
• Quantification of damages
• Variation orders

22 Oct 2021

POSCO DAEWOO MALAYSIA SDN BHD TENAGA WAN BERSAUDARA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2586-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCvC

Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2586-12/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that on the facts Chua acted as the Respondent's agent and the Respondent authorized and/or ratified his acts (and is estopped from denying authority); the Turquand rule and apparent authority protected the Appellant as an outsider; the transactions were trade credit financings, not the business of unlicensed moneylending under the Moneylenders Act 1951; accordingly the High Court's dismissal was set aside and judgment entered for the Appellant with costs.

• Agency and ostensible authority
• Turquand rule / indoor management rule
• Ratification and estoppel
• Interpretation and scope of moneylenders act 1951
• Restitution / unjust enrichment
• Appellate intervention on factual findings

26 Apr 2021

TAM MEI MEI & 10 ORS QUASTONE CAPITAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-32-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-32-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to show a bona fide serious issue to be tried: the agreements did not bind the Defendant as the signatory lacked authority and there were no valid board/EGM resolutions; Plaintiffs also failed to conduct proper company searches and the relief claimed was essentially monetary so damages were adequate.

• Interim injunction
• Agency and ostensible authority
• Breach of contract
• Corporate records and capacity
• Adequacy of damages

25 Sept 2019

KOPERASI TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. MOHD DANIAL BIN MOHD ROZALI (No. K/P.: 880429-01-5175) 2. BAHARUDDIN BIN ABDUL LATIP (No. K/P.: 790328-04-5245) (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya ALISRA ASSOCIATES (No. Perniagaan: MA0190087-A)) 3. ZULMAJDI BI

Citation

WA-22NCC-70-02-2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-70-02-2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found First Defendant solely responsible for devising and representing a non-existent Prudential‑sanctioned group Benefit Scheme and committed fraudulent misrepresentation; Plaintiff proved entitlement to return of unpaid premiums RM1,902,799.80 and damages flowing from deceit; Plaintiff failed to prove nexus or concert between First Defendant and Second/Third Defendants, thus claims against them and counterclaim by Second Defendant dismissed.

• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Rescission and restitution
• Assessment of damages for deceit
• Pleading and proof of special damages
• Agency and ostensible authority
• Adverse inference under evidence act 1950 s114(g)

PULAU PINANG CLINIK SDN BHD v KENCHAN ASSOCIATES SDN BHD

Citation

PULAU PINANG CLINIK SDN BHD v KENCHAN ASSOCIATES SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

The court held that by conduct and implementation of the Medicity Plan from 1 September 1986 the three parties had entered into binding obligations; Defendant 1 acted as agent of Defendant 2 and had authority to bind it; therefore Defendant 2 was liable to the Plaintiff for claims under the Plan despite the Plaintiff not being party to the subsequently executed Master Policy.

• Insurance claims liability
• Agency and ostensible authority
• Tripartite/master policy admissibility
• Parol evidence and conduct forming contract