Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fitness for purpose

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2024

1. ) Hong Sheng Engineering Sdn Bhd 2. ) Ng Gim Hooi Multilink Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-11ANCC-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11ANCC-20-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the defendants demonstrated bona fide triable issues (alleged defects, inadequate compressive strength testing results, prompt complaints, partial rectification by plaintiff and alleged breach of the Sale of Goods Act) which made it inappropriate to decide the matter summarily; consequently the summary judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with costs ordered against the plaintiff.
21 Jun 2023

MALTOOL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) THRIVE GLORY SDN BHD 2. ) BERMAZ MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-35-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality or unfit for purpose because it did not call expert or technical evidence to establish the nature, cause and persistence of alleged defects; the unilateral total rejection was premature given substantial remaining warranty cover and available remedial repair; therefore the Sessions Court's requirement for expert evidence was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
22 May 2023

KWANG LI INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. BLUE OCEAN DATA SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-621-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-621-06/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The contract for the APS was a sale by description with implied conditions of fitness for the particular purpose; the defendant, being the specialist supplier, breached those implied conditions by delivering a custom system that repeatedly failed to perform according to the agreed scope and caused operational loss. The plaintiff was entitled to reject the system and rescind the contract, recover the sums paid and claim damages. The UAT signature did not constitute final acceptance of effective performance and estoppel did not apply. The defendant's contractual clause purporting to claim full…
12 May 2023

Zone Nine Sdn. Bhd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai GBH Ceramics Sdn. Bhd.) Kien Wai Plumbing Construction

Citation

WA-12BC-21-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-21-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed. The High Court held the plaintiff failed to establish a contractual relationship or agency linking it to the defendant, the plaintiff improperly advanced a negligence cause of action not pleaded, the trial judge erred in inferring manufacturer negligence and misallocating evidential burdens, and the plaintiff was deemed to have accepted the goods after a reasonable time; therefore liability and damages against the defendant could not be sustained.
3 Jan 2023

TECHNOLITE MALAYSIA SDN BHD ALFALLAH CLEANTECH (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed to properly evaluate and appreciate the totality of the evidence by wrongly disregarding the SIRIM and manufacturer reports and unchallenged testimony that samples tested came from the failed lights; those reports and testimony established that the VarioLED met or exceeded the catalogue ambient temperature and that damage resulted from improper installation, and the Plaintiff failed to prove non‑compliance or causation on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment was set aside and costs awarded to the Appellant.
10 Nov 2022

ANG WEI JUN KEY POWER SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff to be the registered owner but that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made representations amounting to a warranty that the vehicle was fit for purpose at the time of sale, the one-month warranty had expired before the engine failure, plaintiff did not notify defendant or allow inspection, plaintiff failed to adduce expert evidence proving engine defect and causation attributable to the defendant, and the claimed quantum was not proved; the alleged fraud in obtaining the earlier order was not established. Accordingly the…
31 Oct 2019

MASTER JAYA ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD PENTAS FLORA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1203-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-1203-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: Scrubber No.8 was not fit for purpose and defendant breached express warranties and contractual obligations (including DOE-related obligations and training), the defendant was negligent and vicariously liable for the explosion caused by its sub-agent, the NABBIR report lacked probative value without its maker, the exclusion clause was ambiguous and ineffective, and the damages awarded by the trial judge were supported and not to be disturbed on appeal.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) Hong Sheng Engineering Sdn Bhd 2. ) Ng Gim Hooi Multilink Resources Sdn Bhd

MALTOOL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) THRIVE GLORY SDN BHD 2. ) BERMAZ MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD

KWANG LI INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. BLUE OCEAN DATA SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.

Zone Nine Sdn. Bhd. (dahulunya dikenali sebagai GBH Ceramics Sdn. Bhd.) Kien Wai Plumbing Construction

TECHNOLITE MALAYSIA SDN BHD ALFALLAH CLEANTECH (M) SDN. BHD.

ANG WEI JUN KEY POWER SDN BHD

MASTER JAYA ENVIRONMENTAL SDN BHD PENTAS FLORA SDN BHD