Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choice of law

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2025

A.H.T. Syngas Technology NV Future NRG Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCC-104-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-104-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the transmitted sum was a loan as evidenced by the loan applications, acknowledgement and bank records; the Defendant was an unlicensed moneylender so the loan was illegal under the Moneylenders Act 1951 and therefore the agreement was void under Contracts Act 1950 s24; restitution under s66 CA 1950 was refused because allowing recovery by an unlicensed illegal lender would undermine statutory scheme and public policy; choice of law was Malaysian; counterclaim dismissed with costs.
19 Mar 2025

KOAY KIM HOE (menuntut sebagai nominee SOMPO INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD dan untuk diri sendiri) WONG CHENG NUN (Passport No. F8357492P, seorang warganegara Malaysia yang beralamat di Malaysia)

Citation

JA-22NCvC-60-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-60-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although jurisdiction under s23(1)(b) existed because the defendant resided in Malaysia, the court exercised its discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and held that Singapore was the natural and more appropriate forum for a dispute arising wholly in Singapore with witnesses and documentary evidence located there; plaintiff failed to show Malaysia was appropriate and claim was struck out.
2 Jan 2025

LA LEISURE PTY LTD 1. ) SABRECRAFT MARINE SDN. BHD. 2. ) IPOH CASTING SDN. BHD. (DULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI MEGASTRA JAYA SDN. BHD.) 3. ) Stephen John Stirrup

Citation

BA-22NCC-123-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-123-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Time for completion was set at large by the parties' conduct; the 1st Defendant unjustifiably stopped work in September 2019, failed to comply with contractual notice/termination provisions before selling the partially built Vessel, had no proven right to claimed variation invoices or storage charges, and thereby breached the Agreement; the 3rd Defendant is liable as guarantor under Clause 16; Plaintiff failed to prove loss of profits or total failure of consideration but proved wasted expenditure of AUD523,558.56, which is awarded against the 1st and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally.
23 Jul 2024

EU HOLIDAYS PTE. LTD. FLEXIROAM SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-51-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-51-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Session Court: contractual construction, read in commercial context, placed responsibility for obtaining required registrations and licences on the distributor (Appellant); Respondent had no opportunity to assist because Appellant never sought help and did not call material witnesses; the agreements were not frustrated or rendered illegal such that refund was due; there was no misdirection in the trial judge's application of foreign law or evaluation of evidence, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the lower court decision affirmed.
27 Jun 2024

Tandex Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. Tecnicas Reunidas Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because there was no arbitration agreement: the Purchase Order did not properly establish an event triggering arbitration, the Plaintiff expressly excluded the GTCC, the Defendant disputed formation of any contract, and conflicting choice of law clauses between the Purchase Order and the GTCC confirm that the GTCC was not incorporated and therefore no arbitration agreement existed under the Arbitration Act 2005.
21 May 2024

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA 1. ) SUN HOLDING (SUN PARK HOTEL) CO LTD 2. ) CHEOK TIAM CHENG 3. ) CHEOK SOON GUAN

Citation

N-02(W)-579-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

W
Case number

N-02(W)-579-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court materially erred in applying English/Malaysian tort principles without proof of Lao P.D.R. law; the respondents failed to satisfy the double actionability rule by adducing expert evidence of Lao law, rendering the HCJ plainly wrong on applicable law; the High Court order of 3 March 2022 was set aside and appeal allowed with costs.
16 May 2024

KT GLOBAL RESOURCES SDN BHD CSCECPE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24C-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24C-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the adjudicator committed a material breach of natural justice or acted beyond his jurisdiction under s.15(b) or (d) CIPAA; the matters complained of were merits already ventilated before the adjudicator and the contractual choice of law/arbitration did not displace CIPAA; therefore the set aside application is dismissed and enforcement under s.28 is allowed.
19 Oct 2023

JBC FOODS LIMITED 1. ) CHEONG TENG TENG 2. ) LIEW FUH HAO

Citation

CB-22NCC-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCC-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the parties' clear agreement to arbitrate in Hong Kong and to apply Hong Kong rules and law makes Hong Kong the juridical seat; consequently supervisory jurisdiction lies with the courts at that seat and the Malaysian High Court at Temerloh lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive arbitration matter and must respect the parties' agreed seat by staying proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration in Hong Kong.
15 Jul 2022

1. ) Hew Choong Jeng 2. ) Eng Chip Jin 3. ) Lai Suen Sen 4. ) Kwan Hep Chuen 5. ) Lee Chee Herng Kok Low Kau

Citation

BA-12ANCC-7-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-7-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed and a stay pending arbitration was granted because the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the arbitration clause was null, void or inoperative; the clause covers the dispute and under the Arbitration Act 2005 the absence of an express seat or procedural rules does not invalidate an arbitration agreement as the tribunal may determine seat and procedure.
16 Mar 2022

ING BANK N.V. ANISH RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because ING Bank N.V. failed at Stage 1 to show the Netherlands was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum; new statutory and practice provisions enabling remote testimony reduce weight of traditional inconvenience/expense factors, witnesses from Public Bank are compellable in Malaysia, concurrent proceedings and risk of inconsistent findings favour hearing Malaysian and related claims together, and Sessions Court jurisdiction and service were valid.