Malaysia Case Law

14 Mar 2025

Baguda (M) Sdn. Bhd. Brady Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

PA-22NCvC-183-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

PA-22NCvC-183-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove either mutual mistake or actionable misrepresentation as to the Annex Building's built-up area; the evidence showed knowledge and assent by the Plaintiff (approval/signing of submission drawings and tenancy documents, involvement in preparation), therefore the agreements are valid and binding, including the option renewals; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim allowed with costs, but specified damages claims in paragraphs 38(h) and (i) were not granted.

• Mutual mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Specific performance
• Tenancy/lease options
• Limitation act 1953
• Annex building agreement

27 Sept 2022

P Tree Holding Sdn Bhd 1. ) JPS Holdings Sdn Bhd 2. ) PH 385 Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCvC-499-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-499-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove mutual mistake or fraud and produced no contemporaneous evidence or critical witnesses; the Novation Agreement validly novated Plaintiff's liabilities to PH 385 with assumption of liability constituting consideration; RM56,250,000 is treated as part of the Total Purchase Price under the Novation Agreement; no unjust enrichment established; claim dismissed and parties bound by the Novation Agreement.

• Novation
• Rectification of instrument
• Mutual mistake
• Consideration
• Burden of proof
• Sale and purchase agreement

27 Jan 2022

YEOH ENG KONG 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN PEGAWAI KERAJAAN SDN BHD 2. ) BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-851-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-851-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove mutual mistake or unconscionability; objective construction and factual matrix show 'monsoon drain' referred to the existing drain on PT 1499 and 'Vacant Land' meant the portion west of that drain as marked in the Schedule; Settlement Agreement was negotiated and accepted by plaintiff (including 'as is where is' and subdivision obligations); rectification not warranted and claim dismissed.

• Rectification
• Mutual mistake
• Estoppel
• Specific relief act s30-s32
• Contract interpretation
• As is where is

4 Nov 2019

Ambank Islamic Berhad 1. Seacera Ceramics Sdn. Bhd. 2. Seacera Group Berhad

Citation

22M-496-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

22M-496-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff fulfilled Order 14 prerequisites and produced binding documentary evidence (including Certificate of Indebtedness and asset sale/purchase documents) showing identifiable underlying assets and contractual computation of outstanding sums; defendants failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable issue or manifest error; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff.

• Summary judgment
• Bai al-inah (sale and buy-back)
• Ta'widh (late payment charges)
• Guarantee and indemnity
• Certificate of indebtedness
• Manifest error

FOO LIAN SIN & ANOR v NG CHUN LIN & ANOR

Citation

FOO LIAN SIN & ANOR v NG CHUN LIN & ANOR

Court

Malaysian court

The Court of Appeal held there was no mutual mistake between the purchasers because land descriptions in the sale agreements, charge, annexture schedule and Suratan Hakmilik Sementara consistently showed different PT/HS parcels were sold to each purchaser; the mismatched shophouse numbers were clerical errors and the local authority shophouse numbering does not prevail over legal land descriptions; no main contract or privity existed between purchasers so no collateral contract could be imposed and rectification under s.30 could not be ordered against the appellants; consequently the High Cou…

• Sale of land
• Conveyancing
• Mutual mistake
• Rectification of register/title under s.30 specific relief act 1950
• Collateral contract
• Priority of land description over local assessment number

TAN CHIN SWEE & ANOR V. SERI AMPANGAN REALTY SDN BHD

Citation

TAN CHIN SWEE & ANOR V. SERI AMPANGAN REALTY SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

The contract was void ab initio for mutual mistake as the parties were at cross-purposes about the unit (corner vs end lot); specific performance was refused because performance was impossible as the corner unit was already sold to a bona fide third party; restitution (refund of deposit RM6,380) was ordered.

• Specific performance
• Mutual mistake
• Restitution
• Impossibility
• Liquidated damages