Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exemplary/punitive damages

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2025

1. ) DATO' SERI YONG TU SANG 2. ) KUALA IBAI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) IBAI GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB BERHAD 4. ) IBAI LEASURE SDN BHD 5. ) IBAI RIA SDN BHD 6. ) IBAIMAS SDN BHD 7. ) YONG EMMY 8. ) YONG HIN SIONG 1. ) DATO' CHANG JONG YU 2. ) SINC

Citation

WA-22NCvC-166-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-166-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs failed to prove that D1 breached fiduciary or statutory duties or that there was a conspiracy to injure; documentary evidence and witness credibility showed P1 shared management responsibility and benefited from advances; the Advances were legitimate injections/payments for the KID Group and are payable to D1; the counterclaim succeeded as P1 breached the Shareholders Agreement and the challenged resolutions of 15.10.2018 are null and void; appropriate reliefs including injunction, indemnity and exemplary damages were warranted and awarded.
26 Feb 2025

OG GLOBAL VENTURE SDN BHD 1. ) KEDAH EXOTIC FRUITS SDN BHD 2. ) KEDAH AGRO HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) Perbadanan Menteri Besar Kedah Darul Aman

Citation

KA-22NCvC-23-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-23-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant Third, being the registered proprietor under s.340 National Land Code 1965, proved on the balance of probabilities that Plaintiff's entry into a lease and the lodging of a caveat unlawfully interfered with Defendant Third's exclusive proprietary rights; Defendant Third established entitlement to compensatory and exemplary damages and valuation evidence justified awarding RM3,985,106.19 and costs RM30,000.00 to Defendant Third.
21 Jun 2023

CATHERINE CHEONG POH LIN NANOPAC (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-71-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s findings that the appellant had taken RM14,601.97 and that USD1,050 was payable, and affirmed interest at 5% and costs of RM10,000; it held evidence of authorisation could not be admitted where not pleaded and that the RM200,000 award for general and exemplary damages was excessive and could not be justified given compensatory damages were under RM20,000 and established principles requiring proportionality and restraint, therefore set aside the RM200,000 award; appeal otherwise dismissed and no order as to costs for the appeal.
25 May 2022

1. ) Wasudevan A/l Shridathan 2. ) Mohd Razali Bin Abdullah 3. ) Joseph Anak Nanang 4. ) Choo Kay Lin 5. ) Leing Ti Kang 6. ) Coconut Three Sdn Bhd 7. ) Nexgram Holdings Berhad 8. ) Mazru Bin Mat Yusof 1. ) Lau Tian Kit 2. ) Spacious Glory

Citation

WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that Leing together with Nexgram (NL), NHB and Mazru acted in concert to perpetrate fraudulent lodgements and to institute collateral litigation (Original Suit 210 and Suit 679) and supporting stay/intervener motions with the purpose of depriving Lau/Spacious Glory of the RM12.5m consideration and interfering with Suit 291; such conduct constituted abuse of process and conspiracy by unlawful means, making recoverable the pecuniary investigative and legal expenses as general damages (damages at large); aggravated and exemplary damages and indemni…
25 May 2022

1. ) Wasudevan A/l Shridathan 2. ) Mohd Razali Bin Abdullah 3. ) Joseph Anak Nanang 4. ) Choo Kay Lin 5. ) Leing Ti Kang 6. ) Coconut Three Sdn Bhd 7. ) Nexgram Holdings Berhad 8. ) Mazru Bin Mat Yusof 1. ) Lau Tian Kit 2. ) Spacious Glory

Citation

WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-210-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that Leing, Nexgram, NHB and Mazru acted in concert in a scheme using fraudulent lodgements and collateral litigation (Original Suit 210 and Suit 679) to interfere with and delay enforcement of SG's judgment and to wrest control of SG; those defendants were liable for abuse of process/interference and conspiracy by unlawful means. Damages (general, aggravated, exemplary) and indemnity costs were awarded to plaintiffs; claims against nominee defendants (Vasudevan, Razali, Joseph) were dismissed for lack of evidence and Suit 679 was dismissed with…
10 Jan 2022

1. ) LING PEEK HOE 2. ) LING BOON HUAT 3. ) DING TOH BIEW (M3) 22-45-2008 4. ) DING TOH GIEN (M3) 22-45-2008 1. ) DING SIEW CHING 2. ) GOLDEN STAR 3. ) DING TOH BIEW 4. ) DING TOH GIEN 5. ) DING TOH LEI 6. ) LING PEEK HOE (M3) 22-45-2008

Citation

(M1) 22-203-2006, (M3) 22-45-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

M1
Case number

(M1) 22-203-2006, (M3) 22-45-2008 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the pleading objection was barred by res judicata because the trial judgment expressly awarded special, general and exemplary damages to be assessed and the defendants had not raised the pleading point during trial or appeals; legal fees set out in signed retainers and refresher agreements were actual costs 'incurred' even if unpaid and are recoverable as special damages on an indemnity basis in a fraud action; affidavits exchanged for assessment could stand effectively as pleadings for the assessment; accordingly the plaintiffs were awarded special damages (legal fees and disb…
25 Aug 2021

Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak WIRA BARU SDN BHD

Citation

AB-12ANCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12ANCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was struck out because the plaintiff failed to plead any contractual provision or lawful basis entitling it to damages for delayed payments; material facts did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and payments under the contract had been made in full, rendering the claim unsustainable in law.
26 Jun 2020

TOM OLE GYSLER ARPAN BIN RAPAIEE EJ JOINT VENTURE SDN BHD EJ JOINT VENTURE SINGAPORE PTE LTD WINPCS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-14-03/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-14-03/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Deputy Registrar correctly applied governing principles: the Plaintiff did not plead or particularise equitable, aggravated or exemplary damages, failed to prove causation and the requisite injuries or malice, and parties are bound by pleadings; therefore those heads of damages were properly disallowed and the Deputy Registrar's assessment stands.