Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of assignment

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2025

1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN KEMAJUAN LUAR BANDAR DAN WILAYAH 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) ASPES MECHANICAL SDN BHD 2. ) BAKTIJAYA RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

KA-12BNCvC-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-12BNCvC-6-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's judgment was set aside because it failed to properly appreciate contemporaneous contract documents showing the contract sum was a ceiling subject to re-measurement and approval; the Plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving an entitlement to the claimed sums from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under the DOA; unjust enrichment could not be invoked as it was not pleaded. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
23 Jun 2025

1. ) LEE SUIT YIN 2. ) SRITHARAN NAIDU A/L SUNDARA RAJOO HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-485-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-485-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Second plaintiff lacked locus standi; plaintiffs failed to raise any bona fide triable issues or credible evidence (including on forgery or fraud) to defeat the defendant's counterclaim; contractual instruments and statement of account bind P1 and provide final evidence of indebtedness; accordingly the claim was struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim.
23 Apr 2025

SAVANDARAJAN A/L SUBRAMONIAN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) GOH SWEE WAN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-829-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-829-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material and multiple discrepancies in the plaintiff's documentary evidence (inconsistent name spellings, differing grant numbers, unproven lot areas), absence of the plaintiff's interest in the Trust Deed schedule, lack of proof of payment and the official search showing registration in the defendant trustee meant the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was legal and beneficial owner of the four sub-lots; therefore the originating summons was dismissed with costs.
15 Apr 2025

KABAZ SDN. BHD. SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BERHAD

Citation

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Respondent, as a third party, lacked locus standi to rely on the Deed of Assignment to challenge the Appellant's capacity; the Offer to Purchase was not void as Respondent had performed by paying the deposit and then failed to complete the sale within the contractual period; the Sessions Court erred in applying Section 66 to order refund of the deposit; consequently the Sessions Court's order allowing the counterclaim was set aside and costs awarded to the Appellant.
22 Oct 2024

HARAPAN PADU ENTERPRISE PILACORP RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

AB-12BNCvC-10-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCvC-10-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Deed of Assignment expressly obligated the Defendant (assignor) to ensure payment to the Plaintiff (assignee) for subcontract works and to pay any deficiency where final payment under the main contract was insufficient (clauses 7.2 and 9); JKR's certification of works and Defendant's admissions and conduct established liability and quantum on a balance of probabilities; the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong, so the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judgment with costs.
29 Aug 2024

KOPERASI PELABURAN KAKITANGAN BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) MOHAMED NOOR BIN MOHAMED AMIN 2. ) AZAINE BIN MOHAMED (yang beramal di bawah nama dan gaya TETUAN AZAINE & FAKHRUL) 3. ) MOHAMED AMIN BIN OSMAN 4. ) SYUKRINA BINTI MOHAMED AMI

Citation

BA-22NCvC-322-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-322-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Plaintiff proved that RM3,500,000 was paid into Defendant 1's account for the alleged operatorship and that Plaintiff validly cancelled the transaction; Defendant 1 is therefore ordered to repay the net sum of RM3,462,000 to Plaintiff. Claims against Defendant 2 and against Defendants 3 and 4 were not proved and are dismissed; all claims for contribution and indemnity by defendants against each other were dismissed.
29 Aug 2024

KOPERASI PELABURAN KAKITANGAN BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) MOHAMED NOOR BIN MOHAMED AMIN 2. ) AZAINE BIN MOHAMED (yang beramal di bawah nama dan gaya TETUAN AZAINE & FAKHRUL) 3. ) MOHAMED AMIN BIN OSMAN 4. ) SYUKRINA BINTI MOHAMED AMI

Citation

BA-22NCvC-322-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-322-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that Defendant 2 owed and breached a fiduciary or legal duty to the Plaintiff or was complicit in fraud; Defendant 2 acted for Defendant 1, returned funds upon dispute, and there was insufficient evidence of collective responsibility with Defendant 1, therefore liability for the unpaid sums lies with Defendant 1 and Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 is dismissed.
10 Jun 2024

VIRGIN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD Z & Z BINA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-34-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-34-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under s.11 Arbitration Act 2005 it may grant interim measures to preserve the subject matter and prevent dissipation of assets pending arbitration; the Plaintiff established a prima facie claim as assignee and necessity to maintain status quo, so prayers 1 and 2 were granted, the preliminary objection based on Nishimatsu was dismissed, but prayer 3 seeking full accounts was dismissed as properly a matter for the arbitral tribunal.
29 May 2024

GLOBAL ELECTRICAL & AUTOMATION SDN BHD 1. ) MHMT ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) Ketua Pengarah (Istana Budaya) 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PELANCONGAN SENI DAN BUDAYA 4. ) Jabatan Peguam Negara

Citation

BA-21NCvC-12-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-12-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on the preponderance of documentary and corroborative evidence that Plaintiff executed works to the value of RM1,215,996.20 and is entitled to judgment against 1st Defendant for that sum; D2–D4 were not contractually liable because the Deed of Assignment required certification by D1 which did not occur; Plaintiff's claim for consequential/special damages failed for lack of particularised evidence; 1st Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
23 Apr 2024

PUTRI SHAZANA BINTI MEGAT ABDUL RAHIM SELINA CHONG BINTI ABDULLAH PIHAK KETIGA Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia

Citation

WA-22NCvC-651-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-651-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Judgment-in-Default was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to prove defective service or produce a prima facie meritorious defence and offered unconvinced explanations for the near four-year delay, therefore the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded.