Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of warranty

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2025

SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD LIBERTY INSURANCE BERHAD PIHAK TERKILAN CHONG YING KEONG

Citation

WA-22NCC-329-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-329-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Insurers failed to discharge the burden of proving deliberate ignition or breach of the storage warranty because (a) scientific evidence of incendiary origin was unreliable or absent (GCMS testing and sampling methodology defective, lack of comparison samples, problematic interpretation), (b) fire had progressed to flashover/full room involvement rendering post-fire visual pattern analysis unreliable, and (c) the storage-quantity measurement methodology was unreliable; therefore the fire is found accidental and the warranty not breached, insurers remain liable.
10 Dec 2024

CUBICLE VENTURE SDN. BHD. MOHAMAD RAIS BIN ZAINUDDIN

Citation

NA-24NCvC-365-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-24NCvC-365-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The private caveat lodged by the registered proprietor was cancelled because (1) a registered proprietor cannot enter a private caveat over his own land absent circumstances beyond proprietorship and no such circumstances were proved, (2) respondent failed to prove any caveatable interest or that the transaction was a loan secured by the property, and (3) respondent's allegations of a sham sale were already finally rejected in earlier proceedings and are therefore res judicata.
8 Nov 2023

AUTO LUMINA SDN BHD XXXX

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-40-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-40-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant's appeal dismissed because recurring defects within the warranty period, though not fundamental, amounted to breach of warranty entitling respondent to general damages for inconvenience, discomfort and fear; appellant failed to rebut defect evidence and drew adverse inference for not calling material witness; the Sessions Court's award of RM50,000 was a reasonable exercise of its discretion and is affirmed.
27 Jun 2023

PRIMUTIARA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD TRIMVILLA SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCC-45-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCC-45-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claims fail because plaintiff (via its solicitor) had actual or imputable knowledge of the prior acquisition and therefore was not deceived; contractual exclusion clauses 2A.1 and 2A.2 and the lump‑sum purchase price in the SPA preclude adjustment or restitution based on area discrepancy; defendant did not possess knowledge of the acquisition so could not have misrepresented it; no proven loss for either party; therefore both plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim are dismissed and each party bears its own costs.
29 Jun 2022

TEC D (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD REFINENETWORKS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-123-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-123-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 preconditions and proved a prima facie claim for the price of goods; defendant failed to show any bona fide triable issue preventing summary disposal because goods were accepted, invoices issued, and defendant made part-payments (including after demand) amounting to admission of debt; the defendant's disputes relate to breach of warranty and advisory liability which constitute a separate counterclaim and do not defeat summary judgment on the invoices; accordingly the appeal is allowed and summary judgment is appropriate.
7 Jun 2022

ECOTAFRO MALAYSIA SDN BHD GOODWOOD HOTEL SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-28-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-28-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the damage to the transformers was caused by the plaintiff's failure to install a separate earthing system (causing over-basic impulse/overloading), the transformers were not defective or unmerchantable, the warranty exclusion applied, therefore D2 is not liable to plaintiff; D2's counterclaim was dismissed because expenses were voluntarily incurred without any agreement by the plaintiff to reimburse them.
6 May 2022

FA WAGEN SDN. BHD. (Company No: 199720-X) PORATHA CORPORATION SDN. BHD. (Company No: 518083-K)

Citation

JA-12B-62-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-62-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court: the Plaintiff validly affirmed the contract and claimed damages for breach of warranty under the Consumer Protection Act; defects were established from the reasonable consumer perspective without needing expert evidence; the Defendant's failure to call material witnesses justified an adverse inference; a 29‑month repair period was unreasonable; the award for loss of use was supported by evidence and reduction by the trial judge was within judicial discretion, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
28 Mar 2022

WEARNES AUTOHAUS SDN BHD STA ARCHITECTS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-342-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-342-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because STA's Counterclaim was not plainly or obviously unsustainable; questions whether the salesperson acted on behalf of Wearnes and whether the Vehicle had latent defects require trial and expert evidence, and therefore the matter is not suitable to be struck out under Order 18 r19 ROC 2012.
31 Oct 2019

MASTER JAYA ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD PENTAS FLORA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1203-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1203-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: Scrubber No.8 was not fit for purpose and defendant breached express warranties and contractual obligations (including DOE-related obligations and training), the defendant was negligent and vicariously liable for the explosion caused by its sub-agent, the NABBIR report lacked probative value without its maker, the exclusion clause was ambiguous and ineffective, and the damages awarded by the trial judge were supported and not to be disturbed on appeal.
1 Jan 1900

PORATHA CORPORATION SDN BHD F.A.WAGEN SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52-19-04/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52-19-04/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved multiple fundamental defects in the new vehicle; the defendant failed to repair within a reasonable time despite possession of the vehicle for years; adverse inference was properly drawn for failure to call material witnesses; plaintiff affirmed the contract and was entitled to damages for loss of use and special damages; claim allowed with costs and interest.