Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity clause

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2024

ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD TENGKU MUHAMAD KHAZI HAKIMI BIN KU HUSSIN

Citation

DA-12B-56-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-56-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the total evaluation of evidence the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a pothole filled with water at the material time; photographic and maintenance records demonstrated a tar patch had been done before the accident; under the concession agreement clause the concessionaire (Roadcare) bears responsibility and indemnifies the Government entities, therefore the Sessions Court's finding of vicarious liability against Defendants 1-3 was unsustainable; the Sessions Court's quantum awards were properly assessed and are not disturbed.
21 Jul 2023

1. ) Liputan Canggih Sdn Bhd 2. ) ASCOT HEIGHTS SDN. BHD. 3. ) LBCN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 4. ) EXTROGOLD SDN. BHD 5. ) REDZTIKAH SDN. BHD 6. ) EUREKA FOUNTAIN SDN BHD 7. ) TULUS KEMBANG SDN. BHD 1. ) K&A Management Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dato' Koh Fo

Citation

BA-22NCvC-534-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-534-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the ex‑parte leave and the fourth party notices because (a) there was no justification for ex‑parte relief where the proposed fourth parties had been in the proceedings for years, (b) the existence of KLHC Suit No. 215 was a material non‑disclosure relevant to the indemnity issue and should have been disclosed, and (c) permitting the fourth party proceedings risked abuse of process and duplication of litigation by breaching res judicata / issue estoppel; accordingly the setting aside applications were allowed and the fourth party notices discharged.
10 Mar 2021

GASING POTENSI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) ABDUL HAKIM BIN JAAPAR 2. ) NORHIZZAN BINTI MEGAT HARUN 3. ) GCCP GRIDLAND SDN BHD

Citation

AA-12B-9-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12B-9-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Contract of Indemnity was enforceable; it did not nullify the statutory protection under the SOCSO Act because the Civil Law Act excludes SOCSO payments from damage assessment and enforcement of the indemnity does not defeat the SOCSO scheme's purpose; even if illegality were arguable, applying the Patel v Mirza considerations denial of Gridland's indemnity would not enhance SOCSO's purpose and would be a disproportionate intrusion on commercial freedom of contract, therefore Gasing must fully indemnify Gridland (appeal dismissed).
10 Aug 2020

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR PELITA MAINTENANCE RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-104-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-104-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant's pleadings amounted to a bare denial that did not raise a triable defence; the assignment letters imposed an indemnity obligation on the Defendant to reimburse the Plaintiff for sums paid to Seagate; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and granted.

Malaysia Case Law

ROADCARE (M) SDN BHD TENGKU MUHAMAD KHAZI HAKIMI BIN KU HUSSIN

1. ) Liputan Canggih Sdn Bhd 2. ) ASCOT HEIGHTS SDN. BHD. 3. ) LBCN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 4. ) EXTROGOLD SDN. BHD 5. ) REDZTIKAH SDN. BHD 6. ) EUREKA FOUNTAIN SDN BHD 7. ) TULUS KEMBANG SDN. BHD 1. ) K&A Management Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dato' Koh Fo

GASING POTENSI CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) ABDUL HAKIM BIN JAAPAR 2. ) NORHIZZAN BINTI MEGAT HARUN 3. ) GCCP GRIDLAND SDN BHD

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR PELITA MAINTENANCE RESOURCES SDN BHD