Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consensus ad idem

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2025

TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR BIN TUAN YUSOF NOOR NASHRIQ BIN SEKARNOR

Citation

DA-A72NCC-58-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-A72NCC-58-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found no binding Friendly Loan Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant; Plaintiff lacked locus standi and the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was plain and obviously unsustainable and constituted an abuse of process; therefore the Defendant's application to strike out under Order 18 r19 was allowed with costs.
20 Feb 2025

L Vince Sdn Bhd Sekolah Menengah Stella Maris (Persendirian) Kuala Lumpur

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because there was no concluded renewal or termination under the original contract; the Sessions Court's findings that no consensus ad idem existed and that the plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages and storage costs were supportable and not plainly wrong.
31 Dec 2024

BARONG SERVICES 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN VETERINAR NEGERI SEMBILAN 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan

Citation

NA-A51NCvC-42-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A51NCvC-42-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a binding contract existed because there was no consensus ad idem on terms and no evidence SD1 had authority to bind the State; procurement approval requirements were not met; therefore Defendants do not owe the Plaintiff and the claim is dismissed.
30 Oct 2024

TEOH TEIK LIN ROCKWILLS TRUSTEE BERHAD

Citation

WA-A52-26-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52-26-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Executor Appointment Form signed and agreed by the testator and defendant constituted the binding agreement governing executor fees; its clause expressly entitled defendant to 1% of the gross estate (subject to the form's minimum) and was silent on any maximum, so clause 15 of the Will (the prior agreement with HSBC limiting fees to RM80,000 per year) did not bind the defendant; an express term in the form excluded any implied maximum; accordingly defendant lawfully charged RM437,765.88 and plaintiff's claim for RM277,765.88 failed.
31 Mar 2023

AXVENTURE SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was no consensus ad idem on Clause 7 (Performance Bond) and therefore no concluded contract based on the LoA; however Plaintiff lawfully performed works at Defendant's request and Defendant enjoyed the benefit, entitling Plaintiff to restitution under s 71 Contracts Act 1950; award of actual costs RM1,265,666.43 with interest and costs; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
6 Feb 2023

1. ) DANIA BIN AB RAHMAN 2. ) Muhaini Binti Mustapha FELCRA TRAINING AND CONSULTANCY SDN BHD

Citation

DA-22NCvC-30-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-30-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiffs failed to prove that P3 was a concluded and binding agreement or that the RM634,000.00 was a deposit payable to plaintiffs; there was no consensus ad idem or clear intention to create legal relations, and plaintiffs' witness evidence lacked credibility; accordingly all claims failed.
7 Apr 2022

DAE HANGURU INFRA SDN BHD BALDAH TOYYIBAH (PRASARANA) KELANTAN SDN BHD

Citation

01(f)-32-11/2020(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-32-11/2020(D) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Appeal dismissed because there was no binding contract between the First Defendant and the appellant; the High Court erred in finding a promoter-successor relationship and in applying section 35 without pleaded or evidential foundation for contracts purportedly entered into on behalf of the appellant; estoppel did not apply and the Court of Appeal's finding that no consensus ad idem existed was affirmed.
6 Jan 2022

MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD (NO. SYKT: 782964-H) PARKSON CORPORATION SDN BHD (NO. SYKT: 157029-X)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-184-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-184-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there was no concluded settlement agreement because parties did not agree on material terms (scope of restoration works/Annexure A, restoration costs and timeframe) and were still negotiating; absence of consensus ad idem and absence of mechanism to fix terms meant the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, justifying striking out under Order 18 r.19.
29 Nov 2021

CHEN WEI HAU 1. ) DEREK CHEONG SHENG ZE 2. ) COLLAB WORKING LIFESTYLE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-698-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-698-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the 1st defendant promised and was taken to have agreed to transfer 25% of the 2nd defendant's shares to the plaintiff; the plaintiff acted in reliance and provided consideration by work and participation; there was intention to create legal relations and the 1st defendant is estopped from denying authority; therefore plaintiff entitled to remedies including valuation, payment of 25% of assessed value and 25% of net profits.
25 Nov 2021

PERRIN DILEEN RODRIGUES PERRY DANNY RODRIGUES

Citation

BK-A52NCC-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-A52NCC-2-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it failed to plead essential material particulars (specific date of oral agreement, a certain ascertainable amount and consensus ad idem), contained inconsistent and self-contradictory averments between pleadings, relied on WhatsApp exchanges that did not establish contractual terms, included afterthought arguments unsupported by affidavit, and the plaintiff's own messages indicated repayment due December 2023 making the action premature; the uncertainty rendered the alleged contract void under s.30 Contracts Act 1950 and the claim obviously unsus…