Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan repayment

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

Syed Muhammad Hafiz Bin Syed Ahmad YTS ARCHITECTURE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCC-23-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-23-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time refused because the 48‑day delay was substantial, the defendant's explanation attributing delay to former solicitors was not a cogent reason under established precedent, the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious appeal and had shown lackadaisical conduct at trial, and the court must protect the timetable and oppose prejudice to the respondent.
10 Mar 2025

AFFIN BANK BERHAD 1. ) PCS VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN

Citation

WA-22NCC-222-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-222-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff produced valid certificates of indebtedness under the facilities agreement and the defendants failed to present detailed, specific, and contemporaneously supported facts in their affidavit to establish triable issues; bare allegations and general denials were insufficient to defeat an Order 14 application.
18 Sept 2024

BAST INVESTMENT PTE. LTD. 1. ) MUSANG DURIANS FROZEN FOOD (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) JOHN LEE SIEW NENG PENCELAH 1. ) Pemborong A & L Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) M Durians Fruits (China) Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Maxvogue Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22NCC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Interpreting the SHA objectively, clause 10.1 imposed a time-limited loan available from 1 November 2017 with repayment to be within approximately three years (reasonable time → October 2020); the loan provider proved RM14,090,000 principal unpaid plus interest, and clause 10.1(a) constituted a sufficient guarantee binding the 2nd defendant for 50% of the outstanding amount; defendants' allegations of frustration and abandonment failed and counterclaim dismissed.
12 Dec 2022

XXXX XXXX PIHAK KETIGA XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because Defendan Pertama made full payment of RM170,000 and plaintiffs agreed to re‑transfer the disputed property, the principal cause of action no longer existed; the counterclaim was interrelated and dependent on that principal claim and thus ceased to be necessary to determine; the discontinuance was bona fide and not prejudicial, therefore the discontinuance was allowed and the counterclaim struck out with nominal costs to the second defendant.
28 Apr 2021

TAN CHIN KWEE 1. JOVA INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD. (Company No: 1024803-K) (In liquidation) 2. TAN CHUI YEANG 3. HENNING FRIEDRICH WITT

Citation

JA-22NCC-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The written documents (Letter dated 29 May 2017 and Agreement dated 30 January 2018) unambiguously recorded loans; under the parol evidence rule oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict those documents; the defendants failed to prove their asserted oral arrangements and failed to call the material witness (Kang Hock Kin), permitting an adverse inference; the Document dated 30 January 2018 treats all three signatories as 'Borrowers' indicating personal liability; on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved two loans totalling MYR5.45 million and is entitled to judgment.
1 Feb 2021

1. ) AKIJAYA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1021724-K) 2. ) TEONG PAIK WENG (No. K/P: 860128-08-5171) 3. ) LI LING (No. Pasport: KJ0239720) 1. ) CHAN KIM YOONG (No. K/P: 510208-08-5665) 2. ) TERUS GEMILANG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD [No. Syar

Citation

AA-12A-5-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12A-5-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Documentary evidence (admission of debt on the company letterhead and company cheques) established the loan was to the first defendant company (D1); there was no evidence the second and third appellants agreed to be personally liable and agency law presumes no personal liability by directors; the trial judge's findings as to D1 were not plainly wrong so the judgment against D1 and the third party was upheld, but the judgment against D2 and D3 in their personal capacities was set aside.
8 Jul 2020

TEH CHEE TEONG (NO. K/P: 730416-07-5159) CHAI KA VUN (NO. K/P: 900227-12-5718)

Citation

WA-A52NCC-2212-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-2212-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The cheques and bank deposit evidence established that RM201,675.00 was paid into the Defendant's account (client code 7VC0036); once proved, the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove the payments were not a loan; the Defendant failed to rebut or produce evidence that the sums were payment of investment profits or otherwise non‑debt; the illegality/AML arguments were not substantiated; therefore the Defendant is liable to repay RM201,675.00 and costs.
28 Aug 2018

RIDERS LODGE SDN BHD 1. TROPIK SENTOSA SDN BHD 2. KEBUN SEDENAK SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCVC-129-08/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-129-08/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found plaintiff validly exercised the renewal option under Clause 4.1(m), defendants waived/are estopped from denying renewal by accepting rent and gross revenue sharing and by failing to raise timely objections; specific performance ordered to renew the lease for a further 5 years from 21.5.2014 (and continuation to 2034 pursuant to lease terms); the loan was an unsecured, interest-free advance with no fixed repayment term and therefore not immediately repayable on demand; defendants’ counterclaim dismissed and plaintiff’s caveat held valid.
1 Jan 1900

IDA RAHAYU BINTI MD NOOR DATUK SERI RINA BINTI MOHD HARUN

Citation

A52NCC-193-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

A52NCC-193-08/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant's strike out application failed because Plaintiff's pleadings disclosed triable issues — existence and receipt of the RM130,000 loan, whether condition precedent was waived or unmet, oral postponement of repayments and when cause of action accrued — such that the claim was not plainly unsustainable on the face of the pleadings and required trial evidence.
MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd & Anor V Balasubramaniam a/l K Arumugam

Citation

MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd & Anor V Balasubramaniam a/l K Arumugam
Court

Malaysian court

The three documents form one transaction and must be read together; Clause 8 of the loan letter cannot be construed in isolation to require repayment prior to issuance of the Certificate of Fitness, and 'Certificate of Fitness' is to be given its meaning under the Building (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) By‑Laws 1985.