Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidated and ascertained damages

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety or clear computational error; judicial review dismissed.
6 Feb 2026

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD 1. ) DICKSON WOO BOON SIEW 2. ) CHOONG SOO HOI 3. ) LEE SWEE KIAT 4. ) LEE MEI PENG 5. ) CHU SWEE WAH 6. ) TIONG POH LING 7. ) PRISTINE CLEAR SDN BHD 8. ) CSL PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part: the settlement letters were valid and not vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation; LAD entitlement is to be determined strictly by the express SPA terms and the parties' agreed settlement (but miscellaneous charges agreed in the settlement must be deducted from LAD); the High Court order directing repayment of RM25,394 was set aside because the 6th respondent bore the burden to prove the payment and failed to call material witnesses; accordingly the High Court judgment was varied with revised LAD amounts and costs awarded to the Appellant.
30 Jan 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that the contract was formed at the time of payment of the booking fee/deposit as evidenced by receipts and pro forma documents; accordingly the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession is computed from that payment date; PJD Regency is binding and there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety nor demonstrable computation error warranting intervention; applications dismissed.
26 Jun 2025

IMAGE FACADE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-22C-63-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-63-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendant breached the contract in a way that entitled Plaintiff to terminate; Defendant validly terminated under Clause 51 for contractor default, the Certificate of Termination Costs issued under Clause 56 was properly made and binding, and Defendant is entitled to recover net completion costs and losses amounting to RM25,277,397.53 together with interest and costs; Plaintiff is not entitled to the progress payment, retention sum or claimed 15% contract loss.
28 Mar 2025

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD 1. ) IMPIANA SDN BHD 2. ) ISMAIL @ FAROUK BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-22NCC-528-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-528-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim is contractual and enforceable: defendants, having contracted to redeem and pay dividends, were obliged to take lawful steps (including fresh share issue or capital measures) to effect redemption and cannot rely on statutory prohibitions resulting from their own inaction; consequently the event of default occurred and plaintiff is entitled to enforce the LAD at 2% per month; the 1st defendant's letters are without prejudice and inadmissible as admissions.
30 Aug 2024

EASTMONT SDN BHD MEGA PLANNER JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SoFA returned signed and not disputed within the applicable PAM contractual dispute period (Clause 26.6/30.10) and is therefore final; Plaintiff proved entitlement to outstanding works, materials and variation sums on balance of probabilities; Defendant's counterclaim for LAD and rectification is both time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 and estopped by laches and Defendant failed to prove causation and quantum for alleged pile damage, so counterclaim dismissed.
30 Aug 2024

TUAH USAHA SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia (Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia)

Citation

WA-21C-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21C-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that delays were substantially caused by TNB and other factors beyond the plaintiff's control; the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the S.O. properly exercised discretion to limit EoT No.3 to 60 days; the plaintiff complied with Clause 44 claim procedures and produced supporting contemporaneous documents admitted by the Defendant; consequently LAD was not due and must be refunded and the plaintiff is entitled to proven loss and expense with statutory interest and costs.
29 Apr 2024

1. ) DICKSON WOO BOON SIEW 2. ) CHOONG SOO HOI 3. ) LEE SWEE KIAT 4. ) LEE MEI PENG 5. ) CHU SWEE WAH 6. ) TIONG POH LING 7. ) PRISTINE CLEAR SDN BHD 8. ) CSL PROPERTIES SDN BHD COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-450-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-450-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on the evidence that the Plaintiffs who signed the settlement letters did so induced by fraudulent misrepresentations by Defendant's representatives; the Defendant failed to rebut Plaintiffs' evidence or show payments were not made where alleged; consequently the settlement letters are invalid and void, the 6th Plaintiff overpaid RM25,394 which must be refunded, interest at 5% p.a. is appropriate and costs of RM30,000 are awarded to the Plaintiffs.
15 Mar 2024

ENGENIOUS SOLUTIONS SDN BHD WAH LOON (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-205-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed because the court found the adjudicator had considered the relevant evidence and asked the right questions, there were no clear and unequivocal errors warranting a stay under section 16 CIPAA, and the respondent (ESSB) is a going concern so the AD Sum is payable; accordingly OS184 dismissed with costs and OS205 allowed with costs.
8 Mar 2024

YESB SDN BHD BARCON INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BC-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed YESB’s appeal because the evidence established Barcon and the project consultant instructed additional works after the original completion date, Barcon accepted and verified those works and issued certifications supporting completion; therefore YESB was entitled to payment of the certified balance (RM656,868.93) and retention release. The court set aside Barcon’s claim for LAD because post-completion variation instructions and absence of a revised completion date set time at large, depriving Barcon of the right to impose LAD. Barcon’s counterclaim for RM670,000 failed f…