Malaysia Case Law

4 Oct 2024

Palaniammal d/o Parasuraman 1. ) Swissmed Sdn Bhd 2. ) Oculentis BV PENCELAH Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-22NCvC-672-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-672-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove a contractual relationship or direct supply necessary for implied guarantees under ss32/33 CPA; the distributor established that the defect (opacification) was not reasonably discoverable with the state of scientific knowledge prior to 2017 (s72(1)(d) defence), the distributor did not owe or breach a duty of care causally linked to the plaintiffs' vision loss, and there was no basis for breach of contract, misrepresentation or agency liability — claims dismissed with costs.

• Consumer protection act 1999
• Implied guarantees (s32/s33)
• Strict liability for defective products (s68)
• Statutory defences (s72)
• Duty of care and causation
• Agency and privity

25 Oct 2019

Su Tiang Joo 1. Tribunal For Consumer Claims 2. Mercedes-Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-01(A)-139-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

A

Case number

W-01(A)-139-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had locus standi as a consumer, but the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and powers, respondent Mercedes‑Benz discharged the burden under s24E by documentary and oral evidence, the 3‑year standard form warranty was valid and binding, Part IIIA did not assist appellant, and there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness; appeal dismissed.

• Warranty
• Locus standi
• Burden of proof
• Standard form contracts
• Judicial review
• Wednesbury unreasonableness

HAZLINDA HAMZAH V. KUMON METHOD OF LEARNING CENTRE

Citation

HAZLINDA HAMZAH V. KUMON METHOD OF LEARNING CENTRE

Court

Malaysian court

The Court held s.114 requires the Tribunal to give reasons but does not prescribe that reasons must be in writing or when they must be delivered; oral reasons given at the hearing, later supported by written reasons, satisfied s.114; the High Court erred in quashing the Tribunal award by issuing certiorari for that reason and the Tribunal's partial refund was within its statutory powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1999; appeal allowed.

• Consumer protection act 1999
• Tribunal for consumer claims
• Judicial review
• Certiorari
• Reasons for decision
• Mandamus