Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages quantification

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

YB LIM GUAN ENG 1. ) DATUK ZURAIDA BINTI KAMARUDDIN 2. ) MUHAMMAD ABD AR-RAHMAN KOYA 3. ) MNOW MEDIA SDN BHD.

Citation

BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23CY-15-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved publication, reference and defamatory meanings; defendants failed to discharge burden of proof for justification and did not establish fair comment, qualified privilege or responsible journalism due to lack of independent corroboration and persisting publication despite requests for retraction; malice/reckless disregard was established, but quantum of damages is moderated by public‑interest context and Plaintiff's public figure status, resulting in an award of RM50,000 damages and RM5,000 costs to the Plaintiff.
28 Nov 2025

XXXX 1. ) ERNST & YOUNG 2. ) XXXX 3. ) SJ ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

22NCC-431-03/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-431-03/2012 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Auditor (EY) owed no duty of care to SJAM’s investors either at common law or by statute because no assumption of responsibility or actual reliance was established, the statutory audit engagements were addressed to SJAM’s members and limited by engagement terms, the Australian 'vulnerability' concept is not adopted in Malaysia, the plaintiffs failed to prove breach of MASA (Plaintiffs' expert discredited and EY’s expert supported compliance), causation failed because majority of loss predated EY’s appointment and fraud was a deliberate novus actus, and plaintiffs failed to prove quantum of da…
14 Oct 2025

1. ) LOKUS MEDICAL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) WONG POW LAI 1. ) LOKUS/LOCUS LLC (RUSSIA) 2. ) MALKOV ANDREI VIKTOROVICH 3. ) PETRU BALMUS 4. ) ALLIANCE CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 5. ) TAN GING HOON 6. ) IVAN ANG KHENG HUAT

Citation

WA-22NCvC-735-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-735-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ERMA was unlawfully terminated by D1 because D1 withheld technical assistance and coerced amendments, thereby breaching ERMA and causing the cessation of production; D1, D2 and D3 acted in concert by unlawful means to injure P1 and are liable in tort for interference and conspiracy; D4 was entitled to terminate the CMA once ERMA was lawfully terminated and did not conspire with sufficient pleaded particulars; D4’s counterclaim for wasted expenditure was proven and allowed; P2’s loan claim was not established as loan and was dismissed; plaintiffs failed to prove special and loss-of-profit quan…
2 Sept 2025

MOHAMAD EZZAT BIN MOHAMAD ISMAIL KAMARUL ZAMAN BIN KADER MAIDIN

Citation

KA-A77-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A77-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show both causation and the precise quantum of loss (RM3,142.20); absence of detailed calculations, supporting invoices/payments and failure to tender the contractor quotation as exhibit rendered the claimed amount unproven; claim therefore dismissed with costs under Rule 93.
27 Aug 2025

1. ) WONG POH WAH 2. ) TEO TZI SIN SEA TACKLE SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1841-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1841-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellants, as directors, owed fiduciary duties and breached them by failing to disclose and obtain informed consent for conflicts of interest and by misappropriating company funds as evidenced by documentary proofs; appellants failed to rebut the prima facie evidence; High Court award of RM1,000,000 in damages (apportioned equally) and interest was appropriate and is affirmed; appeal dismissed.
21 Feb 2025

TENG WAI KEAT Pang Jing Yuan

Citation

CB-12B-12-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12B-12-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the trial judge was entitled to prefer one expert report over another as a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion, that the absence of fuller reasons did not demonstrate a material failure to evaluate the evidence, and therefore there was no basis for appellate interference with the quantum award; both the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed.
5 Feb 2025

SYARIKAT AIR NEGERI SEMBILAN SDN.BHD 1. ) LUQMAN HAKIM BIN HENDON (Diatas kapasiti sendiri, sebagai suami yang sah dan orang tanggungan bagi NORHAMIZAH BINTI MAHADI (fatal), Simati serta wakil litigasi bagi Kedua, ketiga dan Keempat) 2. ) X

Citation

NA-12B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the large pothole struck by the vehicle was newly formed and causally linked to a cracked/leaking 8‑inch water main under the carriageway which was under D1's control; JKR/other respondents contributed by failing to maintain drainage and roadside vegetation and by inadequate lighting. Therefore D1 was 80% liable and D2–D4 jointly 20% liable; plaintiffs bore no contributory negligence. Damages were adjusted accordingly (intracranial bleeding RM30,000; fracture award RM40,000 maintained; medical allowance RM200/month for 3 years; loss of dependenc…
29 Feb 2024

OTHMAN BIN MARZUKI 1. ) LOYANG EKUITI SDN BHD 2. ) BEH THING THING

Citation

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove forgery on a balance of probabilities because the handwriting expert’s report was unreliable (no originals and unverified specimens) and recorded conversations did not constitute admissions; further, Plaintiff discovered any alleged forgery while still a director and failed to act to protect the company (breach of fiduciary duty and estoppel including his resignation letter), thus precluding his claim; the company’s counterclaim for libel succeeds because the statutory declaration was defamatory, not justified or privileged, and general damages of RM50,000 are approp…
19 Dec 2023

PBH Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Y&S Ilham Jaya Sdn Bhd PIHAK KETIGA P.B.H Trading & Construction Sdn Bhd (M)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance of probabilities that Defendant's financial mismanagement and failures to pay suppliers and workers materially caused delay; Plaintiff's expert evidence and contemporaneous documents were preferred; Plaintiff proved certain incurred costs but failed to prove boom lift repair and management fees and failed to establish entitlement to LAD due to reliance on provisional contract sum, lack of notice and inclusion of period after Plaintiff took over; Defendant's counterclaim and its claim against Third Party were unproven; judgment awarded to Plaintiff in part for RM 697,030…
19 Dec 2023

PBH Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Y&S Ilham Jaya Sdn Bhd PIHAK KETIGA P.B.H Trading & Construction Sdn Bhd (M)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-427-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court preferred the Plaintiff's expert delay analysis and contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing Defendant's financial failures and responsibility for delay; accordingly Plaintiff proved breach but failed to prove certain claimed items and the LAD claim due to improper quantification, lack of notice and inclusion of period after Plaintiff took over; Defendant's counterclaim and claim against the Third Party were not proven; judgment awarded a reduced proven sum to Plaintiff with interest and costs.