Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Capacity to contract

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

1. ) KHONG KOING CHEW 2. ) LAU TIAN BOON 3. ) CHEN CHEW PENG MAJESTIC MEMORIAL PARK (BS) SDN. BHD.

Citation

AB-24NCvC-119-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-24NCvC-119-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Defendant was not entitled to remain because the 2006 joint venture agreement was void for lack of capacity as determined by the Court of Appeal; the District Officer's written appointment of the named Plaintiffs conferred personal authority and locus to sue, thus entitling the Plaintiffs to succeed on their application.
25 Jun 2025

Lau Tian Boon (Sebagai Setiausaha Dan Wakil Bagi Kwang Kheow Seah, Bagan Serai, Krian (No. Pertubuhan: 1272/63 Perak ) MAJESTIC MEMORIAL PARK (BS) SDN BHD

Citation

A-02(NCvC)(W)-2061-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

A-02(NCvC)(W)-2061-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Association lacked legal capacity and authority to enter into the Joint Venture Agreement because the land was state reserved land vested in the State Authority and there was no written appointment, lease or licence in favour of the Association at the material time; consequently the JVA was void under s.57 Contracts Act 1950 and the High Court decision dismissing the claims was correctly affirmed.
15 Apr 2025

KABAZ SDN. BHD. SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BERHAD

Citation

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Respondent, as a third party, lacked locus standi to rely on the Deed of Assignment to challenge the Appellant's capacity; the Offer to Purchase was not void as Respondent had performed by paying the deposit and then failed to complete the sale within the contractual period; the Sessions Court erred in applying Section 66 to order refund of the deposit; consequently the Sessions Court's order allowing the counterclaim was set aside and costs awarded to the Appellant.
7 Jun 2024

1. ) OSMAN BIN ISMAIL 2. ) SITI SALMIAH BINTI ISMAIL 3. ) UMMI KALSUM BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) KAMARIAH BINTI MAIDEEN SHEIK 5. ) ISMAIL BIN IDRIS 1. ) KAMARALZAMAN BIN IDRIS 2. ) NORMALA BINTI MOHD YATIM 3. ) Pentadbir Tanah Pejabat Tanah Negeri S

Citation

BA-22NCvC-580-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-580-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiffs proved that the 5th Plaintiff lacked capacity at the material times and that the 1st Defendant exercised undue influence and breached trust; res judicata did not apply because prior orders were procedural not merits judgments; oral testimony of treating doctors was admissible despite no formal expert reports; there was no credible evidence that RM55,000 was paid; accordingly the impugned transfer was tainted and the Plaintiffs were entitled to damages and costs as quantified by the Court.
6 Apr 2022

ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD 1. ) WAKIL DIRI KEPADA FATIMAH BTE ADAM 2. ) MAHAT BIN PINDEK 3. ) R. KALAIVANI A/P RAJOO 4. ) DAARSHINI PRIYA A/P MANIAM

Citation

WA-24NCC-346-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-346-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the named insured had died before the purported renewals, no valid contract could be formed in her name; Schedule 9 and s129 FSA 2013 regulate voidability of existing consumer insurance contracts and do not apply where a contract is void ab initio for lack of capacity; accordingly the renewed policies in the deceased's name were void ab initio, declarations were granted and premiums ordered refunded.
10 Sept 2019

ALDAR FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI JOHOR

Citation

JA-21NCVC-12-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCVC-12-08/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Letter of Acceptance did not constitute a legally binding contract because the parties objectively remained in negotiation on essential terms (notably purchase price, safety/security, and foreign‑law registration), the Plaintiff lacked legal competence/registration and was not shown to be the legal/beneficial owner with locus standi, and even if a contract existed it was voidable/unenforceable due to misrepresentation as to value and frustration by foreign‑law restriction; accordingly Plaintiff's claim failed on the balance of probabilities.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) KHONG KOING CHEW 2. ) LAU TIAN BOON 3. ) CHEN CHEW PENG MAJESTIC MEMORIAL PARK (BS) SDN. BHD.

Lau Tian Boon (Sebagai Setiausaha Dan Wakil Bagi Kwang Kheow Seah, Bagan Serai, Krian (No. Pertubuhan: 1272/63 Perak ) MAJESTIC MEMORIAL PARK (BS) SDN BHD

KABAZ SDN. BHD. SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BERHAD

1. ) OSMAN BIN ISMAIL 2. ) SITI SALMIAH BINTI ISMAIL 3. ) UMMI KALSUM BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) KAMARIAH BINTI MAIDEEN SHEIK 5. ) ISMAIL BIN IDRIS 1. ) KAMARALZAMAN BIN IDRIS 2. ) NORMALA BINTI MOHD YATIM 3. ) Pentadbir Tanah Pejabat Tanah Negeri S

ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD 1. ) WAKIL DIRI KEPADA FATIMAH BTE ADAM 2. ) MAHAT BIN PINDEK 3. ) R. KALAIVANI A/P RAJOO 4. ) DAARSHINI PRIYA A/P MANIAM

ALDAR FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI JOHOR