Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages and costs

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

1. ) AGENDA JERNIH SDN. BHD. 2. ) LADANG MAHA WARISAN SDN.BHD. 3. ) LADANG LENANG SDN. BHD. CHEING JIN HUANG

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2836-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2836-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Defendant had not established a caveatable interest in the lands because the Form 19B reasons were limited to 'awaiting further clarifications' and did not plead any registrable interest; shareholders/beneficiaries do not have caveatable interest in company land and trust for conversion principles apply; consequently the private caveats were legally unsustainable and must be removed, with damages to be assessed and costs awarded.
6 Feb 2026

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) 1. ) NUR AKMAR BINTI TAHA 2. ) SAIFUL IZHAM RAMLI 3. ) ZAHARI BIN TAHA

Citation

BI-A52NCC-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BI-A52NCC-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found the agreement of 4.10.2006 was valid and binding; study leave is excluded from service under Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil.6/2005 so Defendant 1 had a remaining contractual service period when she resigned; Defendant 1 breached the agreement and Defendants 2 and 3 as guarantors are jointly liable; Plaintiff's claim is therefore proved on the balance of probabilities and costs were awarded to Plaintiff.
9 Jun 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG LI CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Te Chee Siong 5. ) Lim Soon Seng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahari Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found sufficient pleaded particulars and corroborating evidence that D2 and D3 misrepresented an urgent need and verified unsupported claims, that D1 did not legitimately supply machinery claimed, that two retrospective work orders were used to regularize prior dubious invoices, and that D4 and D5 (directors) consented to and benefited from the scheme so the corporate veil is lifted; relief was granted accordingly including repayment of overpayment and damages; D1's counterclaim was dismissed.
9 Jun 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG LI CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION 2. ) CHAN KAH WAI 3. ) CHAI YEE HIN 4. ) Te Chee Siong 5. ) Lim Soon Seng PIHAK KETIGA Zulbahari Abu Bakar

Citation

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-14-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that D2 and D3 made material misrepresentations as to urgency and verified/payments for fabricated or unsupported claims by D1; delivery records and kong cards were unreliable; plaintiff overpaid RM3,100; D4 and D5, as controllers of D1, were complicit so corporate veil is lifted; declarations, monetary awards (general, aggravated/exemplary), interest and costs were ordered accordingly.
10 Apr 2025

1. ) TATSUNO CORPORATION 2. ) TATSUNO ENGINEERING & SERVICE MALAYSIA SDN BHD FLOWFUEL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-54-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-54-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the defendant infringed the registered trademarks and committed passing off because it used signs identical or similar to the Plaintiffs' Marks in the course of trade without consent; the defendant failed to prove the pumps originated from the plaintiffs or that there was any express or implied consent; the exhaustion/first-sale doctrine did not apply given altered information plates, false manufacturing dates and model numbers, absence of disclosure that pumps were refurbished, and likelihood of public confusion and damage to plaintiffs' goodwill. Damages to be assessed and co…
27 Jan 2025

SARAF BIN MARU KHATAMMI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BL-24NCvC-148-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCvC-148-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the defendant did not possess a caveatable or registrable interest in the plaintiff's land because SPA 2 and the related power of attorney had been terminated by the High Court on 21.6.2024 and the defendant had only made partial payment; consequently the caveat was unjustified and must be removed. The plaintiff's application was allowed and costs were awarded, with assessment of damages to follow.
22 Jul 2024

GEODIS MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ) KANG BENG KOON 2. ) POH FEI FEN 3. ) TANDEM MALAYSIA HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-13-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-13-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the judge found D1, as directing mind of TGL, knowingly carried on business with intent to defraud the Plaintiff, the corporate veil was lifted and D1 was personally liable for the overpaid sum; D2's dishonesty was not proven and D3, being a company, is not a 'person' under s.540 for the cause of action against it.
23 Jan 2024

SEEMA ELIZABETH ISOY TAN SRI DAVID CHIU TAT-CHEONG

Citation

02(f)-54-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-54-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The impugned WhatsApp message, though containing factually true allegations of past charges, deliberately omitted the material fact of the respondent's acquittal known to the publisher, transforming the publication into a half-truth that created a false defamatory impression; English common law on half-truths is applicable under Civil Law Act s3(1) because the Defamation Act 1957 is not comprehensive on the issue; malice was established by deliberate omission, defeating qualified privilege and fair comment, and justification failed because the statement was not substantially true. The Court o…
28 Dec 2023

AINUN MAZIYAH BINTI HASSAN 1. ) AWANG @ HAMZAH BIN DAUD 2. ) TENGKU WAJIHAH BINTI RAJA HARUN 3. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Citation

DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted existence and genuineness of the PJB and eyewitness evidence of signing; found Form 14A defective/insufficient (no consideration recorded) and Plaintiff was confused/misled into writing "SEMUA" resulting in an instrument that was void/insufficient under Section 26 Contracts Act 1950; under Section 340 National Land Code registration was therefore defeasible and liable to be set aside; accordingly transfer of the full 3/10 share is declared void, 1 acre to be re-registered to Plaintiff, limited damages and costs awarded, and claims against public officers dismissed.
14 Nov 2023

1. ) Kumpulan Powernet Berhad 2. ) Powernet Industries Sdn Bhd 1. ) Woo Wai Mun 2. ) Moo Yong Kong Meng 3. ) Au Chan Chun 4. ) Tai Teck Soon 5. ) Powerfit Industries Sdn Bhd 6. ) Powernet Trading (M) Sdn Bhd PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) RHB BANK BER

Citation

WA-22NCC-327-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-327-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

WA-22NCC-327-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)