Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex turpi causa

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2025

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

Citation

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and Amended Statement of Claim were struck out because the plaintiffs’ own pleaded admissions and contemporaneous documents demonstrated the share sale and subsequent agreements were genuine, the claim was thereby ex facie tainted by illegality/sham allegations unsupported by evidence, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden to displace the pari delicto bar, and the claims were frivolous or vexatious such that summary dismissal under Order 18 r 19 was justified.
21 Apr 2025

1. ) TADMANSORI HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 2. ) DATUK SERI UTAMA TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 3. ) DATO' DR. TENGKU RETHWAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR 1. ) DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) THREE WELLS HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. 3. ) DATUK LIU THIM SOO

Citation

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-332-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because the plaintiffs' pleaded case and affidavits admitted conduct consistent with a sham yet produced no contemporaneous internal documents to support the sham allegation; contemporaneous executed documents (Share Sale Agreement, Form of Transfer, Trust Deed, Supplemental Agreement, letters, and actual cheque instalments) and post-acquittal conduct demonstrated a genuine sale; the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden to show the Patel trio of considerations displace in pari delicto; the writ and Amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of actio…
17 Sept 2024

GOODWINDS PROJECT SOLUTIONS SDN BHD OKG (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-44-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-44-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction and acted independently and impartially because he posed the correct legal question, considered the Cost Proposal and evidence and reasonably concluded the works were construction/fit‑out works not regulated interior design consultancy under the Architects Act; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and the adjudication award was ordered enforced.
12 Oct 2023

Garuda Searah Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) YEOW POOI MUN

Citation

WA-25-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court concluded that a binding contract was formed on 9.9.2017 when the Purchase Application Form (with clear identification of unit and price) and payments were made; accordingly the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession started from 9.9.2017; the Tribunal's conclusion on that point was not vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, but the Tribunal failed to transparently explain its computation of quantum of damages, so calculation of LAD should be on the basis that vacant possession was due by 9.9.2020 and delivered on 21.10.2021 less the days ex…
27 Feb 2023

Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn. Bhd. TAN SEW CHENG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities; the sole Plaintiff witness lacked knowledge of critical facts, the decisive witness (Plaintiff's director) was not produced, and despite the presumption of truth on an unopposed case the burden remained with the Plaintiff — therefore there was no case to answer and the claim is dismissed.
18 Aug 2022

1. ) HAN SHENG CHIEW 2. ) TEY SENG KWANG CANDOR VENTURES SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-3-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-3-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Sessions Judge erred in finding the illegality defence was not pleaded, on rehearing the appellants failed to prove the leases were illegal: respondent had valid and renewed local planning approvals and there was no evidence of state enforcement or failure to remedy title‑condition breaches under s127 NLC making the leases void. Therefore the leases are enforceable, the Sessions Court judgment in favour of respondent is affirmed, and appellants' counterclaims for restitution fail, also barred by ex turpi causa given appellants' own unlawful operation.
15 Jul 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CIMB BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN H DANTTI BINTI MOHAMAD

Citation

WA-29PB-925-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29PB-925-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the substituted service orders and subsequent service were valid because the Judgment Creditor had reasonably relied on JPN search results and complied with procedural rules; the Judgment Debtor's failure to update JPN records prevented her challenge; consequently the Bankruptcy Notice, Creditor's Petition and Adjudication/Receiving Orders were not nullified and the appeal by the Judgment Creditor succeeds.
29 Sept 2021

DA-12B-33-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-12B-33-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-33-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Ex turpi causa did not bar the claimant because its application in tort is limited; there were no material inconsistencies and the Trial Judge properly accepted the plaintiff and investigator evidence; no negligence found on claimant and defendants were 100% liable for the collision; quantum awarded by the Sessions Court was appropriate and is upheld.
1 Jun 2021

HONG LEONG MSIG TAKAFUL BERHAD (CO. NO.: 738090-M) MSM INTERNATIONAL ADJUSTERS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (formerly known as McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd) (CO. NO.: 14645-T)

Citation

WA-22NCC-284-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-284-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant breached its contractual duties by submitting fabricated adjuster reports without investigating; ex turpi causa defence fails because the fraud was not attributable to the plaintiff (fraud was the independent wrongdoing of its employee, not the plaintiff's directing mind) and exceptions (Hampshire Land and 'very thing' exception) apply; defendant liable to repay RM1,303,119.45 and refund RM71,846.80 with interest and costs; third parties held liable to indemnify defendant to limited extents; Faisal and Mirza jointly and severally liable for full indemnity to defendant.
3 Nov 2020

NUR AIMI IRDINA BINTI MOHAMMAD (Mendakwa melalui wakil litigas/bapa: Mohammad bin Hussain) 1. ) MOHD FIZRUL FITRI BIN AZIZAN 2. ) SHAZWANI BINTI MOHD NORASHID

Citation

KI-A73KJ-27-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KI-A73KJ-27-11/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant's version more probable based on neutral evidence (damage profiles and scene marks); the plaintiff failed to prove defendant's negligence and, being an 11‑year‑old who did not hold a motorcycle licence, was held fully responsible for causing the accident under the cited authorities.