Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Caveat

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

LIAN HOCK HARDWARE SDN. BHD. G-MART CORPORATION SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-24NCvC-82-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-82-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant established a prima facie equitable interest arising from the Sale and Purchase Agreement (deposit paid and substantive steps taken); a bona fide substantive dispute exists over validity of the SPA that requires full trial; balancing the justice and risk of irreparable prejudice favors maintaining the caveat pending determination of the substantive action; accordingly plaintiff's application under Section 327 NLC to cancel the caveat is dismissed and the caveat remains in force, with costs awarded to defendant.
1 Apr 2026

Mazian binti Md Sa'at Anuar bin Mat Jan

Citation

JB-22NCvC-42-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-42-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The strike out application was allowed because the Plaintiff failed to plead particulars of alleged fraud/misrepresentation/undue influence, the allegations were contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence and the Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrating knowledge and consent, and because an inordinate unexplained delay of about 12 years caused serious evidential prejudice making the claim plainly unsustainable under Order 18 r 19.
4 Mar 2026

1. ) DHRSHNI DEVI A/P RAHMIS 2. ) RAHMIS A/L SUPPIAH 1. ) SEKHARAN A/L ASSARIAH 2. ) KOMALA DEVI A/P KONDIAH

Citation

JA-22NCvC-53-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-53-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue of material fact; the contested points were either undisputed facts or issues of contract interpretation resolvable on the documents; plaintiffs were ready and willing and had not materially breached the SPA; therefore specific performance and a permanent injunction were properly granted and defendants ordered to execute transfer documents and refrain from dealing with the property.
9 Jan 2026

BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD. 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was not plainly wrong: a constructive trust arose by operation of equity to protect plaintiffs who had paid substantial sums, taken possession and had subsisting SPAs; non-payment of the entire balance did not bar equitable relief; laches and limitation were not established against the plaintiffs; appellants' reliance on Official Receiver/bank consent did not defeat plaintiffs' equitable rights, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.
9 Jan 2026

LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-468-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-01(NCvC)(W)-468-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court was not plainly wrong: the SPAs remained subsisting, plaintiffs had paid deposits, taken possession and lodged caveat, a constructive trust arises in equity despite non-payment of the balance to prevent unjust enrichment, laches and limitation defences were inapplicable as pleaded, and therefore the High Court's declarations and orders (including entitlement to specific performance upon payment of RM314,800) were upheld; appeals and cross-appeals dismissed.
18 Dec 2025

ABU HANZALAH BIN ABU BAKAR NA BON TIAM

Citation

BA-22NCvC-582-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-582-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to make the required full and frank disclosure and his pleaded ignorance was implausible and contradicted by land records, caveats and other material, so equitable relief was refused.
8 Dec 2025

1. ) MOHD HAFIS BIN MOHD NASIR 2. ) NURUL IZZATY BINTI ROSLAN 1. ) ZAHARUDIN BIN OTHMAN 2. ) AZHANI BINTI AZMAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-353-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-353-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that, on the contractual terms, the Consent to Transfer was not procured within the Approval and Extended Approval Periods and no extension was evidenced, so the SPA is deemed to have lapsed; the Undertaking Letter validly varied the SPA imposing rental and conditional renovation obligations which the Plaintiffs breached by failing to pay rent and by carrying out renovations without local authority approval; those breaches justified the Defendants' termination and entitlement to the relief claimed in the summary judgment application; accordingly Enclosure 10 was allowed and cos…
26 Nov 2025

Yong Wee Chong 1. ) Tan Booi Tiang 2. ) Tan Kim Hooi 3. ) John Doe 4. ) LEE KIAN HAN, TEE YEE KOON, PHANG SONG MUN, ALVIN LEE SZE CHANG (Kesemua beramal sebagai Rakan Kongsi bagi Firma Guaman Tetuan Han & Partners

Citation

JA-22NCvC-98-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-98-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden to prove the SPA was a sham, fraudulent or procured by misrepresentation; contemporaneous evidence was absent, pleadings and trial evidence were inconsistent, material alleged co-conspirators were not served or called, and the registered transfer to D2 therefore remains valid and enforceable, entitling D2 to vacant possession.
19 Nov 2025

SIN CHUNG TOURS SDN BHD SOH KO JIN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-873-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-873-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Respondent lacked any proprietary (registered or beneficial) interest in the company land at the date of the caveat; being a beneficiary of shares or a director does not create a caveatable interest absent acting bona fide for the company in relation to the land; respondent did not discharge the burden under s327 KTN and the caveat was mala fide and an abuse of process, therefore the caveat must be cancelled and removed immediately.
28 Oct 2025

1. ) TANG SER CHIEW 2. ) LIM YAR TING LEE MEI KIM

Citation

N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the evidence as a whole the two SPAs were sham agreements masking an unlicensed moneylending transaction: the presumption under s10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 applied and the respondent failed to rebut it; agreements thus fell foul of s15 MA1951 and were unenforceable. The High Court erred in failing to address the moneylending issue; accordingly Appeal 792 and Appeal 802 were allowed, the High Court decision and injunction/order against the 5th defendant were set aside, with costs awarded.