Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Lease termination

  • 14 Jan 2025

    MOHD SHUKRI BIN OMAR NAZ KEL SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    DA-24NCvC-299-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-24NCvC-299-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found that acceptance of rent for March and April 2024 did not amount to a waiver of the applicant's right to terminate the lease because the respondent had by 22.4.2024 unequivocally treated the contractual relationship as ended and sought substitution by a third party; no new binding lease was concluded between applicant and respondent; therefore the original lease is declared terminated and the respondent must deliver vacant possession within 30 days and pay costs of RM5,000 (subject to fi alokatur).

  • 14 Jan 2025

    MOHD SHUKRI BIN OMAR NAZ KEL SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    DA-24NCvC-295-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    DA-24NCvC-295-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the March and April 2024 payments were made in the context of negotiations on new terms and did not evidence an intention by the applicant to waive the right to terminate; respondent had by correspondence renounced any continuing contractual relationship and no new lease was executed between the parties, therefore the original lease is terminated and respondent must deliver vacant possession within 30 days; costs RM5,000 awarded to applicant subject to taxation.

  • 17 Jan 2024

    ANANDAN A/L SINNAPPAN UMI KHADIJAH BINTI HARUN

    Citation
    NA-11BNCvC-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    NA-11BNCvC-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found the lease was amended to commence 1.9.2005 (signed 7.9.2005) and therefore expired 31.8.2021; the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the lease effective 30.4.2021 and was in breach. The defendant did not unlawfully remove the permanent building and was entitled under clause 15 to be compensated for construction cost; the defendant also proved loss of profits and alternative rental, so the magistrate erred in dismissing the counterclaim and awarding the plaintiff RM52,000.

  • 26 Oct 2023

    AUSTIN POWDER ASIA PACIFIC INC. TROPICANA CORPORATION BERHAD

    Citation
    BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Application to amend was dismissed because the plaintiff filed it after more than one year from the events relied on, after extensive trial preparations and three case management conferences, and under the governing robust approach to delay the inordinate delay and resulting prejudice warranted refusal and costs.

  • 20 Mar 2023

    PIN HWA PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. G7 RETAIL MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

    Citation
    BL-12ANCvC-16-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-12ANCvC-16-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held the counterclaim raised triable issues tied to the lease and that the Sessions Court unfairly dismissed it without proper case management steps (notably without a second management hearing and without an 'unless order'); accordingly the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Court for full trial with costs to the appellant.