Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Epf contributions

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

1. ) Khatijah Binti Mohd ( Menuntut Sebagai Isteri Dan Anak-anak Yang Sah Serta Orang Tanggungan, Simati (Mohd. Fairuz Bin Mislahon) Dan Juga Untuk Kecederaan Diri ( Pertama) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) Che Hui Ling 2. ) CHE HUI SHAN

Citation

BA-12B-23-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-23-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the Sessions Court properly preferred contemporaneous documentary evidence for income, made reasonable and permissible deductions for the deceased's living expenses in the absence of precise proof, correctly declined to include EPF contributions due to lack of documentary proof, and the appellants failed to show any error of law, misapprehension of evidence or a plainly wrong figure warranting intervention.
25 Oct 2024

Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Perkerja 1. ) Ong Ching Mei 2. ) Jalaluddin Bin Mohd Jarjis PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Yeo Wei Tien Timothy 2. ) Teo Ai Ling

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-614-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-614-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant Second's application to strike out the writ and statement was allowed because he resigned before the prescribed payment period for the March 2020 contribution commenced and therefore the claim against him, as pleaded, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse/frivolous in respect of that claim; conversely the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine triable issues (timing and effectiveness of resignations, validity of unsigned/unprocessed documents, indemnity letters, nominee status and controverted SSM entries) requiring or…
18 Oct 2024

Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1. ) WIDAD EDUCATION SDN. BHD. 2. ) MUHAMMAD IKMAL OPAT BIN ABDULLAH 3. ) MOHD RIZAL BIN MOHD JAAFAR

Citation

CA-B52NCvC-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-B52NCvC-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for summary judgment under Order 14 by producing unchallenged Form E and Certificate of Indebtedness and establishing that the Third Defendant was a director during the relevant period; the Third Defendant failed to raise any triable issue or prove manifest error, and under s46 EPF Act directors are jointly and severally liable, therefore summary judgment is appropriate against the Third Defendant for the claimed sum and costs.
17 Jul 2024

1. ) MOHD ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ABDUL KADIER SAHIB 3. ) AWANG DAUD BIN AWANG 4. ) MOHD SHARIFF BIN OMAR Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja

Citation

08(i)-66-03/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

08(i)-66-03/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Leave to appeal was refused because applicants failed to show a novel question of general principle or public importance under s96(a) CJA; existing consistent authorities (Ong Kim Chuan, Edwin Cassian, Marzida) establish that under s46 EPF Act directors may be sued independently and summary judgment was properly entered, so further Federal Court determination is unnecessary.
29 Apr 2024

Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1. ) MG BULLIONS HOLDING SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD NUR HISYAM BIN CHE MAHMOOD 3. ) MOHD AMLI BIN MAT ARSHAD

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-372-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-372-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established prima facie entitlement via served assessments/Form E and supporting affidavit; burden shifted to defendants who failed to raise bona fide triable issues or produce contradictory calculations or evidence of non‑receipt; defendants' denials were bare and unmeritorious; therefore summary judgment entered for plaintiff for the claimed amount and costs.
2 Apr 2023

NAGENTHIRAN A/L THANGARAJOO 1. ) MUHAMAD AZWAN BIN MOHD AFANDI 2. ) YLS RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

DA-12B-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-26-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Allow part of the appeal: the trial judge erred in excluding employer EPF from the multiplicand and in some assessments of pre‑trial care; inclusion of overtime/allowances and EPF increased the multiplicand, the court adjusted the future earnings award and confirmed a one‑third deduction for living expenses on the combined figure; the applicant was entitled to an award for spouse care before trial and an awarded wheelchair cost, but other claims for extensive assistive devices, paid full‑time carers, driver and depression medication were not proved and properly rejected.
3 Nov 2022

LEE TUAN HOCK @ LEE HENG GUAN MOHD SIDEK BIN MAHADI

Citation

JA-12B-20-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-20-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court was not plainly wrong: it properly evaluated oral and silent evidence (photographs, vehicle damage, police and investigation findings) to apportion liability 80% to defendant and 20% to plaintiff; the quantum awards including RM70,000 for the mild head injury and the special and future loss awards were within judicial discretion and not so unreasonable as to warrant interference; claim for EPF contributions was correctly rejected as plaintiff was no longer an employee.
22 Apr 2022

Lum Teck Cheong 1. ) First Taz Tradition Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Tunku Ahmad Zahir Bin Tunku Ibrahim

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-445-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-445-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove oral representations, fraud or actionable misrepresentation; as a director the plaintiff participated in board decisions and accepted reduced remuneration by renewing contracts thereby affirming new terms; legitimate expectation doctrine did not apply in the private employment context absent a certain promise; no basis existed to pierce the corporate veil or to hold the second defendant personally liable; EPF arrears remained a joint director liability where appropriate; consequently plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs.