Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Negligent misstatement

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

MOHD SHAH REZZA BIN SAM SELI 1. ) SYED FAIZAL SHAH BIN SYED GULZAR ALI SHAH 2. ) NURUL SHAMEEM BINTI SHAHEEN CHUGTAI

Citation

WA-12BNCC-11-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-11-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: the Sessions Court erred in finding a duty of care/special relationship and in assessing reliance and causation. There was insufficient pleaded or proven assumption of responsibility, agency or that a reasonable person in D1's position would have known he was being relied on; consequently negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss was not established and the judgment against D1 was set aside with costs.
27 May 2024

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) MOHD NASIR BIN SAAT 2. ) SABARUDDIN BIN MOHAMED ALIAS 3. ) MOHD SABBRI BIN MD YUDIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-810-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-810-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claim dismissed: the Court found the Plaintiff had approved a specific loan amount before instructing valuation and thus was the author of its own loss; additionally the Defendants' valuation methodology did not breach valuation standards and the claim was time‑barred, so no liability or recoverable loss was established.
26 Oct 2022

1. ) MUKESH KUMAR A/L M S KAPOOR 2. ) RITA KUMARI A/P BRAHAM SHARAN KALIA 3. ) KOAY TENG KEONG 4. ) TAN KOK NEE 5. ) OOI CHEE KHEONG 6. ) OOI CHENG HUAT 7. ) KHOO POH GIOK 1. ) TERANG MURNI SDN BHD 2. ) TAN & TAN DEVELOPMENTS BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-225-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-225-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Tan & Tan acted as agent of Terang Murni; Tan & Tan’s sales representatives made false and/or negligent representations about the nature of the penthouse units that materially induced plaintiffs to enter S&P agreements; the delivered units were not bona fide penthouses but mirror-image combinations of two standard units (dual-sub units); plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the S&P agreements or, alternatively, have damages assessed under Order 37, and are awarded collective costs.
25 Jul 2022

1. ) CHEN YOOK BEE 2. ) LOON CHEE WENG 3. ) LEONG TACK MING 4. ) TONY NG SOO MENG 5. ) PREMA A/P ACHU 6. ) WAI CHEE SENG 7. ) TAN ENG SOO 8. ) CHIN YEW SIN 1. ) NEUROGINE CAPITAL (L) LTD 2. ) EMAS FINTECH INC 3. ) CHEN CHEE ONN 4. ) JASON K

Citation

BA-22NCvC-160-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-160-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The striking out application was dismissed because the plaintiffs' pleadings disclosed arguable causes of action against D1 and D3 and material factual disputes exist that cannot be resolved on affidavits; the matter requires a full trial rather than summary disposal under O 18 r 19.
24 Feb 2021

LEE KIM NOOR TETUAN KN LEE & ASSOCIATES 1. JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG 2. ASMAH BINTI MAT

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1352-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1352-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court failed to address limitation; held the cause of action in tort accrued when the SPA was executed (06.04.2004 or 22.04.2004) or when the full purchase price was paid (26.05.2004), therefore the six‑year limitation under s6 ran from those dates and the 2015 suit was time‑barred; s29 was not pleaded; High Court judgment was set aside.
22 Dec 2020

Sim Keng Siong Lean Kock Kiang Lee Sek Ang Forward Resources & Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCVC-459-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-459-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted Lean's evidence (corroborated by contemporaneous messages and documents and witness demeanour) that Sim represented he had majority shareholder support and induced payment of RM2,500,000; that representation amounted to negligent misstatement and, alternatively, the payment constituted money had and received due to total failure of consideration; fraud was not proved; remedies awarded were repayment of RM2,500,000 with interest and an injunction against disclosure of confidential information; other heads (professional fees, aggravated/exempla…
27 Feb 2020

JDI BUILTECH (M) SDN. BHD. DOKA FORMWORK MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22C-37-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-37-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove a false pre-contractual statement that induced entry into the contract or to specify a duty of care; contemporaneous documents and admissions show Defendant represented general-workers sufficiency in some projects and Plaintiff failed to prove reliance/inducement; Plaintiff also materially contributed to delays by failing to pay invoices, entitling Defendant to suspend deliveries under express contractual terms; Defendant's counterclaim proved except for disputed damaged and unreturned items, leading to partial allowance of RM1,110,283.09 plus contractual interest an…
30 Aug 2019

1. ANUAR BIN ROZHAN 2. CHE KAMARUDIN BIN MOHD 3. CHEW SIANG PENG 4. CHONG KWET HIN 5. CHOO PIN YAN 6. CHOY SOO NGOH 7. EMMALINE ASHLEY-WAY CHUA 8. FOO KWEE SIM 9. GOH KEAT CHOO 10. JASMIN VICTORIA A/P EMMANUEL 11. LEE CHENG LEAP 12. KO KIM

Citation

WA-22NCVC-9-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-9-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the Defendant made the pleaded representations; even if representations were made, no sufficient proximity or duty of care arose and public policy (contractual remedies against developer/escrow and caveat emptor) negated imposing a duty; plaintiffs also failed to prove causation and actual losses (no evidence escrow funds were misreleased); claim dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
19 Feb 2019

PMB TIJARI BERHAD 1. METRO MEGAMAS SDN BHD 2. SAJAD HUSSAIN

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-2145-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-2145-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the amendment because the Original Notice of Appeal could reasonably be read as appealing the part of the High Court judgment awarding RM4,000,000 (encompassing liability and quantum), the respondents were not prejudiced (they had addressed both issues in written submissions), and the Court properly exercised its Rule 21(1) discretion to permit clarification rather than defeat the appeal on a technicality.