Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs assessment

Legal area

Court

29 Dec 2025

R.E Electrical & Construction Works Mentari Plaza Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

KA-24C-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24C-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Encl.14 was disregarded for non-compliance with Rules of Court; on the merits Defendant failed to prove that no monies were due or payable at the time it received the Plaintiff's request and failed to comply with mandatory s.30(2) CIPAA notice requirement or produce contemporaneous evidence of payment or valid set-off; Defendant's back charges and LAD were raised after the request and were unsubstantiated; consequently the Plaintiff was entitled to enforcement of the adjudication via direct payment and the Originating Summons was allowed with costs.
4 Sept 2025

KENG HENG GOLDTECH SDN BHD 1. ) NIKS KB JEWEL 2. ) KEHL EMPIRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG SA SDN. BHD. 4. ) KEDAI EMAS HARGA LELONG PP SDN. BHD. 5. ) EMAS HARGA KASIH SAYANG SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai EMAS KASIH SAYAN

Citation

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Costs are compensatory, not punitive; balancing the plaintiff's entitlement and the 15th Defendant's hardship, the court fixed costs at RM30,000 payable by the 15th Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to Order 59 Rules of Court 2012, subject to allocator, because that amount is reasonable and proportionate to the work done, length of proceedings and the parties' conduct.
14 Apr 2025

PAX INVESTMENTS LIMITED STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-231-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-231-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The bank breached its contractual and common law duties by mishandling the due diligence/reactivation process and negligently handling the garnishee proceedings (deficient notification, failure to dispute liability and improper release); those breaches were the but-for and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's loss; Plaintiff entitled to recover principal RM6,588,605.74 plus recoverable special damages (Malaysian legal fees and travel expenses) and interest; costs awarded on standard basis.
19 Dec 2024

KILANG BERAS MEGAT DEWA SDN BHD AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

KA-A72NCvC-87-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A72NCvC-87-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to set aside the court's own final judgment (Lampiran 38) was improper because the judgment was given after a full trial and the proper remedy was an appeal within the appeal period; the court is functus officio and lacks power to cancel its final judgment in these circumstances; the application was an abuse of process and therefore dismissed with costs of RM500.
16 Dec 2024

1. ) JASMI BIN YUSOF 2. ) KHALMA ROS BINTI KHOLI 1. ) MUHAMMAD OSMAN BIN KATERAN 2. ) MOHAMED SAZALI BIN ABDUL AZIZ 3. ) TETUAN SAZALI & LIM

Citation

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the written sale agreement and witness testimony established plaintiffs purchased 10 acres for RM1.8 million and received that land; plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, undue influence or breach of fiduciary duty and failed to show Defendant One was a bare trustee for plaintiffs; adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act was not attracted; claims dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
22 Apr 2024

WONG MAU@WONG MOI 1. ) LOW SWEE LIN 2. ) LOW SWEE YING

Citation

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 because the impugned transfers occurred in October 2003 and the suit was filed in March 2020 beyond the statutory period; Section 29 did not assist the plaintiff because she failed to prove discovery of fraud within the limitation period or reasonable diligence; Section 22 does not extend limitation exceptions to remedial constructive trust claims in this factual matrix; the plaintiff failed to prove forgery—contemporaneous documents and eyewitness (solicitor KH Lim) supported the defendants; documentary e…
25 Jul 2023

Teminsri Construction Sdn Bhd Central Spectrum (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCvC-510-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-510-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ad interim extension lapsed automatically on 12.4.2023 due to Applicant's failure to pay the required security; the court therefore ordered the Applicant to notify the Registrar of Titles and to provide documentary proof of cancellation of the 19 caveats, awarded costs to the Respondent (RM40,000 subject to alocatur), and granted the Respondent liberty to pursue a separate action to claim damages if any.
11 Jul 2023

1. ) Berjaya Air Sdn Bhd 2. ) Chailease International Financial Services Co Ltd 1. ) Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd 2. ) Civil Avation Authority of Malaysia

Citation

BA-22NCvC-110-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-110-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the 2nd Plaintiff is a BVI-incorporated foreign company with no evidence of assets or significant business in Malaysia and BVI is not a reciprocal enforcement jurisdiction, there is a real risk the 1st Defendant would be unable to recover costs if successful; the issues are not plain and obvious so merits were not probed; on assessment of likely costs and proportionality the court exercised its discretion under O.23 to order RM100,000 security for costs, with an alternative irrevocable undertaking from the 1st Plaintiff as substitute and costs of the application assessed at RM5,000.
21 Jun 2022

ETA Global Resources Sdn Bhd PI Brilliant Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-228-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-228-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The termination was valid under clause 4.5 of the Tenancy Agreement read with clause 6.2 of the Offer Letter because PKNS instructed the Defendant to take back the land and the licence was not renewed; therefore the Plaintiff's claims for wrongful termination and unjust enrichment fail and the Defendant is entitled to recover unpaid rentals of RM44,333.34 and costs of RM25,000.
27 May 2022

TROPICANA GOLF & COUNTRY RESORT BERHAD 1. ) Loke Wai Kuen 2. ) Lee Wei Lid

Citation

BA-12BC-1-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-1-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s factual findings that the 1st-3rd Defendants’ renovation works caused the seepage and were liable in negligence and private nuisance, but intervened on quantum: reduced general damages for emotional distress from RM200,000 to RM10,000 due to lack of medical evidence and failure to mitigate, thereby reducing total payable by 1st-3rd Defendants to RM115,682.92; allowed 4th Defendant's appeal holding the developer was not liable under the DMC or in negligence (no implied term, proviso limiting liability, lack of proximity and remoteness), and adjusted costs…