16 Jan 2026
Defendant, as bailee, was negligent and liable for the loss of plaintiff's hard drive; the post‑generated exclusion clause was not incorporated and in any event would be void under s29 Contracts Act 1950; plaintiff proved breach but not quantifiable loss, therefore awarded nominal and aggravated damages and interest.
8 Dec 2025
The plaintiffs, by failing to pay security for costs and electing not to call evidence at trial, abandoned the main action which is therefore dismissed; D3, D4 & D9 have a valid cause of action in unlawful interference with trade based on unjustified invocation of legal process and proved, on a balance of probabilities and in light of unchallenged testimony, that D9 suffered commercial harm warranting nominal and exemplary damages; consequential awards are RM10,000 nominal and RM300,000 exemplary plus costs.
14 Oct 2025
ERMA was unlawfully terminated by D1 because D1 withheld technical assistance and coerced amendments, thereby breaching ERMA and causing the cessation of production; D1, D2 and D3 acted in concert by unlawful means to injure P1 and are liable in tort for interference and conspiracy; D4 was entitled to terminate the CMA once ERMA was lawfully terminated and did not conspire with sufficient pleaded particulars; D4’s counterclaim for wasted expenditure was proven and allowed; P2’s loan claim was not established as loan and was dismissed; plaintiffs failed to prove special and loss-of-profit quan…
28 Aug 2025
The preliminary objection was dismissed (Order 37 timeline directory); liability arising from a wrongly obtained ex parte TDO was recognised but the Respondents failed to prove the specific quantum of their claimed losses with the required evidentiary certainty and causal linkage; accordingly the Court awarded global nominal damages rather than the large unproven specific sums and refused aggravated damages absent contumelious conduct.
21 Jul 2025
The LOA fixed a six-month completion to 28 Feb 2015 and contained an express LAD of RM10,000/day which, under the LOA's precedence clause, overrides the GCS cap; the defendant did not validly apply for extension of time under the PAM procedure and unlawfully suspended and failed to complete the works, so LAD ran from 1 Mar 2015 to JKKP certification on 2 Jun 2015 (94 days) equating to RM940,000; plaintiff was entitled to recover third-party rectification costs because defendant failed to deliver works fit for purpose and no valid payment certificates supported defendant's counterclaim, hence…
4 May 2025
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim for the market value of the vehicle (RM77,000) because agreed policy documents (renewal certificate and market valuation) established that sum as both insured amount and market value; the loss of use claim was rejected because the policy expressly excluded such losses; the unauthorized removal entitled only nominal damages (RM1,000) as no actual loss was shown; the Sessions Court decision on the insurer's counterclaim was otherwise maintained.
29 Apr 2025
The High Court affirmed the magistrate: the plaintiff discharged the initial burden to show personal use of the corporate card; the burden then shifted to the appellant who failed to justify the expenses or produce receipts; the appellant breached fiduciary duties; unjust enrichment could not be relied upon because it was not pleaded; the plaintiff was entitled to recover the excess unpaid sum after salary set‑offs and the appellant's counterclaim was dismissed; costs of RM5,000 awarded to the respondent.
22 Apr 2025
Plaintiff's substantive claim for loss of use was rejected for lack of credible, detailed evidence and because the acquisition had been completed well before the registered transfer to plaintiff; nominal damages of RM3,000 were awarded for loss of use. The registry authority breached its statutory and common law duties by failing to cancel title after acquisition, attracting exemplary damages; the court fixed exemplary damages at RM38,575 (25% of RM154,300, being the compensatory base of RM151,300 land value plus RM3,000 nominal loss), and assessment costs of RM2,000 were awarded.
27 Mar 2025
Appeal allowed in part: the Sessions Court award of RM376,879.20 (special damages) and costs RM7,500 was set aside because the award lacked adequate evidential foundation and reasoned findings in the record; non-compliance with formal expert-report procedures did not automatically exclude SP4 but Plaintiffs failed to prove special damages specifically; appellate court awarded nominal damages of RM30,000 and costs of RM10,000 (subject to allocator) while leaving unappealed possession, demolition and injunction orders intact.
4 Feb 2025
Plaintiff failed to prove actual loss or causal nexus between the defendant's private caveats and the claimed expenses; the claimed amounts were incurred by related companies and not the plaintiff, were not shown to be reasonably foreseeable, and solicitor-client fees claimed were not recoverable; accordingly only nominal damages are appropriate. The court awarded nominal damages of RM10,000 to the plaintiff and ordered the plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of RM5,000.