Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Letters of undertaking

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

MTC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.

Citation

W-03(IM)(NCC)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)(NCC)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the LOU did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the VME/SOM Contract because the reference in the LOU was a mere recital intended only to provide context and was insufficient under s9(5) to make the arbitration clause part of the LOU; the LOU was a standalone, temporary undertaking and MTC was not a party to the main contract containing the arbitration clause.
9 Sept 2025

Chai Ching Nang London Weight Management Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-22-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-22-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's admission of employment letters, letters of undertaking and AES computer-generated records under the Evidence Act; the letters were validly signed and enforceable; the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that customers had unutilized amounts and that advance commissions totalling RM188,770.22 were repayable; the defendant failed to produce customer evidence or documentary proof to rebut the AES records or to substantiate her counterclaims, and concurrent factual findings were not displaced on ap…
14 Mar 2025

Yun Nam Hair Care Sdn. Bhd. Ng May Lean

Citation

MA-A72NCvC-190-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MA-A72NCvC-190-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the written agreements and letters of undertaking valid and binding, the contractual conditions for entitlement to commission were not met by the Defendant, clause 3(C)-(D) and Part A rendered advances repayable as a debt on demand, the cause of action accrued after the demand and the claim was within the six-year limitation period, therefore Defendant liable to repay RM84,924.87 and pay costs.
17 Jan 2022

MYCREATIVE VENTURES SDN. BHD. 1. ) TSYAHMI GROUP SDN BHD 2. ) Tengku Mohamed Syahmi bin Tengku Mahmood 3. ) Natalie Najua Binti Zainal Abidin

Citation

BA-22NCC-76-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-76-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants have raised bona fide triable issues—both factual and legal—including statutory limitations on lawful redemption under the Companies Act, disputes over the nature and enforceability of the letters of undertaking as personal guarantees, and factual disputes requiring viva voce evidence—therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the plaintiff's application must be dismissed.
10 Sept 2021

TUAN MAT BIN TUAN ISMAIL TAN AH HIN & 4 OTHERS

Citation

BA-24NCC-22-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-22-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff’s alleged entitlement to 50% of the judgment sum derived from the 2010 Settlement Agreement, but that agreement was held by the Shah Alam High Court (and affirmed on appeal) to have been validly terminated for plaintiff’s breach; the 2014 Letters of Undertaking do not create an independent enforceable contractual right outside the S/A and must be read in its context; consequently the claim is barred by res judicata and declaratory relief should be refused.
22 Apr 2021

1. ) 1. See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye 2. See Ewe Lin 2. ) United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad 1. ) United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad 2. ) 1. Kum Hoi Engineering Industries Sdn Bhd 2. Heveaplast Marketing Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

01(f)-5-02/2017(B) Didengar Bersama 02(f)-8-02/2017(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-5-02/2017(B) Didengar Bersama 02(f)-8-02/2017(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that on the established facts Heveaplast was the immediate purchaser and created the UOB charges after Heveaplast's registration; UOB therefore was a subsequent purchaser whose charge is protected by the proviso to s 340(3) of the National Land Code 1965 because there was no evidence UOB lacked good faith or valuable consideration. The Court of Appeal correctly implied a term into the UOB undertaking (business efficacy/officious bystander) that the undertaking only takes effect if the transfer enabling registration could occur; accordingly UOB's appeal and the See broth…

Malaysia Case Law

MTC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. VME PROCESS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.

Chai Ching Nang London Weight Management Sdn. Bhd.

Yun Nam Hair Care Sdn. Bhd. Ng May Lean

MYCREATIVE VENTURES SDN. BHD. 1. ) TSYAHMI GROUP SDN BHD 2. ) Tengku Mohamed Syahmi bin Tengku Mahmood 3. ) Natalie Najua Binti Zainal Abidin

TUAN MAT BIN TUAN ISMAIL TAN AH HIN & 4 OTHERS

1. ) 1. See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye 2. See Ewe Lin 2. ) United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad 1. ) United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad 2. ) 1. Kum Hoi Engineering Industries Sdn Bhd 2. Heveaplast Marketing Sdn. Bhd.