Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Estoppel (s.115 evidence act 1950)

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2022

THERMATEK SDN BHD TM GLOBAL MARINE SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(ADM)(W)-1103-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

ADM
Case number

W-02(ADM)(W)-1103-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Majority held s.42 did not apply because there was no binding agreement that KPPS would assume the appellant's obligation and there was no effective/permanent third‑party performance (the KPPS payment was refunded), therefore the appellant’s debt was not discharged; estoppel and conspiracy claims failed for lack of requisite facts and proof.
28 Sept 2018

TERATAI SANJUNG (M) SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 425188-W) LEMBAGA PEMASARAN PERTANIAN PERSEKUTUAN

Citation

W-01(NCvC)-305-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)-305-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because the Supply Agreement was not binding on FAMA: evidence showed ZAA acted without any mandate or knowledge of senior FAMA officers, the Agreement lacked the statutory/common seal and required internal approvals under the FAMA Act, and the appellant knew FAMA’s statutory status and should have inquired; therefore indoor management rule and estoppel could not validate the contract or bind FAMA.