Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Escrow arrangements

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2025

TETUAN KRISH MANIAM & CO Sarawak Cable Berhad PENCELAH 1. ) Leader Cable Industry Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) 2. ) Universal Cable (M) Berhad (Dalam Likuidasi) 3. ) MAHMUD ABU BEKIR TAIB PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad 2. ) AmB

Citation

WA-28JM-21-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28JM-21-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that (i) the Balance Retention Sum was subject to a Quistclose-type trust in favour of the SCB Financiers by analogy with PECD and equitable considerations of unconscionability, and (ii) the RA and ASA evidenced an intention to create an express (contractual) trust or ring-fence incoming funds into the Escrow Account; accordingly the IJM was directed to pay the Balance Retention Sum into the Escrow Account and Enclosure 51 was dismissed while Enclosure 135 was allowed with costs orders.
15 Jul 2024

SKAIBA PRIVATE LIMITED 1. ) KCT UNITED SDN. BHD. 2. ) HEONG POH WAH 3. ) TEOH HOCK PENG 4. ) YAP ROU ZHI 5. ) LENG WIE MUN

Citation

WA-22NCC-310-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-310-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Defendant breached the Glove SPA; Article 8 did not absolve liability because Rakan Niaga's failure was not the sort of unforeseeable external cause confined by Article 8 and was within the 1st Defendant's control under its supply arrangement; Article 15's limitation did not apply to losses that were the direct result of the 1st Defendant's breach; Plaintiff proved entitlement to refund USD1,554,095 and damages; Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation by the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants and their claims are dismissed.
2 Oct 2020

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. DSE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-185-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-185-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the Plaintiff's pleaded case against the 2nd Defendant raised serious triable issues of fact and law (including whether the 2nd Defendant caused or procured diversion of contract proceeds and whether it breached onerous undertakings) that could not be resolved on affidavit; the claim was not obviously unsustainable or an abuse of process.
30 Aug 2019

1. ANUAR BIN ROZHAN 2. CHE KAMARUDIN BIN MOHD 3. CHEW SIANG PENG 4. CHONG KWET HIN 5. CHOO PIN YAN 6. CHOY SOO NGOH 7. EMMALINE ASHLEY-WAY CHUA 8. FOO KWEE SIM 9. GOH KEAT CHOO 10. JASMIN VICTORIA A/P EMMANUEL 11. LEE CHENG LEAP 12. KO KIM

Citation

WA-22NCVC-9-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-9-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the Defendant made the pleaded representations; even if representations were made, no sufficient proximity or duty of care arose and public policy (contractual remedies against developer/escrow and caveat emptor) negated imposing a duty; plaintiffs also failed to prove causation and actual losses (no evidence escrow funds were misreleased); claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.

Malaysia Case Law

TETUAN KRISH MANIAM & CO Sarawak Cable Berhad PENCELAH 1. ) Leader Cable Industry Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) 2. ) Universal Cable (M) Berhad (Dalam Likuidasi) 3. ) MAHMUD ABU BEKIR TAIB PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad 2. ) AmB

SKAIBA PRIVATE LIMITED 1. ) KCT UNITED SDN. BHD. 2. ) HEONG POH WAH 3. ) TEOH HOCK PENG 4. ) YAP ROU ZHI 5. ) LENG WIE MUN

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. DSE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD

1. ANUAR BIN ROZHAN 2. CHE KAMARUDIN BIN MOHD 3. CHEW SIANG PENG 4. CHONG KWET HIN 5. CHOO PIN YAN 6. CHOY SOO NGOH 7. EMMALINE ASHLEY-WAY CHUA 8. FOO KWEE SIM 9. GOH KEAT CHOO 10. JASMIN VICTORIA A/P EMMANUEL 11. LEE CHENG LEAP 12. KO KIM