Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review standard

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

YO YAN SOCK 1. ) Surpass Excellence Sdn Bhd 2. ) T.K.LOW & CO

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-28-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-28-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to plead and prove any exception under section 340 National Land Code (fraud, forgery, void instrument or unlawful acquisition) to impeach Respondent Second's registered title; the Sessions Court's factual findings were not plainly wrong; Appellant likewise failed to plead and prove a duty, breach and causation against the law firm (Respondent Third); therefore the appeal is dismissed and the registered title and SPA between Respondent First and Second stand.
17 Nov 2025

Ivory Associates Sdn Bhd AST MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-6-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-6-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly interpreted the clear contractual terms establishing a minimum 25-month rental, the respondent's dismantling of the cranes pursuant to the appellant's instructions did not constitute acceptance of early termination, the respondent proved loss for the unexpired rental period and mitigation was not substantively in issue, and there was no basis for appellate intervention under the 'plainly wrong' test; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment affirmed.
31 Oct 2025

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD 1. ) MD MIRZA GALIB RAHMAN 2. ) ASHIKUR RAHMAN 3. ) LITON MIA 4. ) MD EBRAHIM 5. ) RASEL AHAMMAD 6. ) NAEEM BHUIAN 7. ) SABBIR AHMED 8. ) MD. MOBARAK HOSEN 9. ) MD AYET ALI 10. ) MOZNU MIA 11. ) PUNNA MONDOL 12. ) M

Citation

BA-16-60-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-60-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ADM correctly applied section 72 to allow representative testimony, properly interpreted identical employment contracts which provided a basic wage payable from arrival, and the Appellant failed to substantiate its case on conditional payment, work assignments, advances or unlawful conduct; the High Court found no plainly wrong error in the ADM's findings and dismissed the appeals.
31 Oct 2025

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD 1. ) MINHAZ 2. ) MD SATTAR ALI 3. ) MD LITON AHMED 4. ) MD MATU MIAH 5. ) MUBAROK MIAH 6. ) MD BAPPY 7. ) MD PABEL MIAH 8. ) MD RAKIB 9. ) MD MASUD RANA

Citation

BA-16-59-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-59-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ADM correctly applied s72 to allow representative evidence; the written employment contracts unambiguously entitled respondents to basic wages from arrival; Appellant failed to prove conditional payment, advances or recalcitrant conduct with reliable evidence; there was no basis for appellate interference under the 'plainly wrong' test, therefore appeals were dismissed and ADM's decisions affirmed.
30 Sept 2025

PROVENTUS BINA SDN BHD FORTIS STAR SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court correctly admitted the computer-produced invoices and statements based on witness evidence proving production in the ordinary course; the Defendant was estopped from denying receipt of delivered goods given delivery orders and prior conduct; the 1.5% monthly late payment interest term was incorporated by the Defendant's conduct; there was no manifest error warranting appellate intervention, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is affirmed with costs.
18 Jul 2025

PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD 1. ) Abdul Ghani Bin Mohd Noor 2. ) MOHAMAD HAIZIR ASRAF BIN MOHAMAD TARMIZI 3. ) EMBI MOHD RIDZUAN BIN MAT HUSSIN

Citation

BA-12B-20-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-20-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge was not plainly wrong on findings of liability or on the assessment of quantum; the appellant failed to prove fraud or unauthorised rider, failed to call key witnesses, and the loss of earnings award was reasonable; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed.
16 May 2025

Ling Yexiang LYC MOTHER & CHILD CENTRE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BCY-8-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BCY-8-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the first three publications were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff and were published; the defendant's admissions and the section 114A presumption established publication and authorship; the defendant failed to prove truth/justification or fair comment as primary facts were not substantiated (lab results negative and no evidence supporting typhoid causation); publications 4–6 were not pleaded and could not be relied upon; exemplary damages and injunctive/apology orders were appropriate; general damages awarded by Sessions Court were ex…
22 Apr 2025

FIRDAUS RIZAL BIN ABDUL MANAN [Pegawai Pendakwa]

Citation

AA-42K-6-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42K-6-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was an agent and sole authorised signatory with dominion over the firm's client account, received and failed to disburse RM116,187.88 and RM18,000.00, and acted dishonestly, rendering the conviction under s.409 safe; a stay of execution was granted pending appeal on exceptional humanitarian and financial grounds and existing bail conditions were maintained.
20 Dec 2024

ZAUYAH BINTI AHMAD Rozinah Binti Ahmad (Berniaga Di Bawah Nama Dan Gaya 'Warung Dayang Salai Dilinggi' No. Pendaftaran: 200603073238 (Ns0014360-u)

Citation

NA-12BNCvC-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12BNCvC-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the impugned social media broadcasts and WhatsApp messages were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff and were published to third parties; the defendant failed to prove justification or provocation and produced no evidentiary basis for her allegations; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to general damages of RM50,000 and costs, and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Dec 2024

1. ) MULTI AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND ASSIST SDN BHD 2. ) AUTO RESCUE SDN BHD 3. ) THAEVAN A/L VELLAIPOOVAN 4. ) VICKNESWARAN A/L SUPPIAH 5. ) HEMMA A/P VICKNESWARAN PROTON EDAR SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-73-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-73-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court, on rehearing, found the Sessions Court was not plainly wrong: the payment of RM277,501.00 was an overpayment for services not rendered and constituted unjust enrichment requiring refund; evidence supported that Auto Rescue was formed to continue D1's business and to avoid liability, amounting to fraud and justifying lifting the corporate veil to hold the individuals liable; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.