Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑delegable duty

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2026

Ng Lay Heong 1. ) Loh Guan Lye & Sons Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr. Teoh Mei Shi

Citation

PA-23NCvC-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden: no expert evidence was adduced to establish that D2 breached the applicable standard of care or that any breach materially caused the deceased’s death; unrebutted defence expert evidence established Stage 4 EGFR exon-19 metastatic lung cancer present in April 2019 and indicated that earlier treatment would not have altered outcome (lead-time bias and treatment toxicity); MMC disciplinary findings are not determinative in civil liability; because D2 is not liable, D1 is not liable and Plaintiff’s claim fails.
16 Jan 2026

CONDOLINK SDN BHD 1. ) SDB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) INTA BINA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA ELKA ELZA LEGACY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-327-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-327-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts linking the First Defendant to the alleged trespass; absent pleaded control, authorisation or assumption of responsibility, the independent contractor principle applies and no non-delegable duty was established; therefore the claim against the First Defendant is plainly unsustainable and an abuse of process, justifying strike out under Order 18 r.19 ROC.
11 Sept 2025

PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD 1. ) ZAKARIA BIN HAMID (Bapa kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA) 2. ) GAYAH BINTI DOCHIK ( Ibu kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA)

Citation

A-04(NCvC)(W)-444-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

A-04(NCvC)(W)-444-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

PLUS, as toll concessionaire under FRA 1984 s5, owed a common law duty to highway users to maintain the highway in good repair and that duty in respect of hazardous highway maintenance is non-delegable; PLUS and PROPEL failed to take reasonable steps to discover and remove a dangerous foreign object on an unlit stretch and to mitigate night-time risk (eg lighting, effective SOP and response times), thus both were negligent and liable (80% apportionment to appellants, 20% to deceased); High Court was not plainly wrong and its increase of monthly dependency to RM500 stands; appeals dismissed.
11 Sept 2025

PROJEK PENYELENGGARAAN LEBUHRAYA BERHAD (PROPEL) 1. ) ZAKARIA BIN HAMID (Bapa kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA) 2. ) GAYAH BINTI DOCHIK ( Ibu kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA)

Citation

A-04(NCvC)(W)-447-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

A-04(NCvC)(W)-447-10/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held PLUS (as concessionaire under FRA 1984 s5) and PROPEL owed a common law duty to users and that duty was non-delegable for highway maintenance/hazards; appellants failed to take reasonable steps (patrols at 45–50 minutes and no adequate lighting insufficient) to discover/remove the hazardous foreign object within a reasonable time, thus causing the Deceased's death; the Sessions Court’s apportionment of liability (80% appellants, 20% deceased) and the High Court’s adjustment of quantum to RM500 per month were not plainly wrong and were affirmed; appeals dismissed with costs.
18 Jul 2025

ASMA BINTI AHMAD SHARIFF TIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Citation

BA-12B-139-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-139-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 59(1)(a) and (i) of the Strata Management Act 2013 do not, on their proper construction, impose a standalone statutory duty on a management corporation to establish or maintain a system of safety and security for residents; implementation of such measures is effected by by-laws or collective decisions (eg special resolution); plaintiff failed to prove breach or control necessary for res ipsa loquitur and failed to prove quantum; appeal dismissed.
14 Jul 2025

TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GENBINA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-219-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-219-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff owned the cables, the excavation works carried out by defendants at the identified location caused the damage, Defendant 1 had knowledge and supervisory responsibility and failed to ensure reasonable precautions by the subcontractor, thus Defendant 1 is vicariously and jointly liable; plaintiff proved quantum predominantly by contractor invoices and internal records accepted under s.90A, entitling plaintiff to RM286,448.75, interest at 5% from 19/9/2019 and costs RM10,000.
29 Jul 2024

KEJENDRAN A/L SUPRAMANIAM 1. ) MAJLIS DAERAH KUALA SELANGOR 2. ) Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Selangor 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor PIHAK TERKILAN GAS MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BL-A51KJ-7-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A51KJ-7-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found on the evidence that the plaintiff's accident was caused by pipe sections left at the road shoulder without warning or supervision; defendants owed a statutory duty under s.7 GPA 1956 to maintain public roads and to prevent hazards, and they failed to discharge that duty by not ensuring warning signs, supervision or inspections; the activity of laying pipes was not shown to be extraordinarily hazardous so a general non-delegable duty was not imposed, but the third party admitted responsibility and contractual permit terms accepted third-party liabilities; accordingly defendants we…
29 Nov 2023

AVISENA HEALTHCARE SDN BHD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) MONICA GILL 3. ) MOHD SAFFUAN BIN JOHARI

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1346-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1346-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that, on the face of the Resident Consultant Agreement and the affidavit material, the consultant was a self‑employed independent contractor and the agreement evidenced no employer‑employee relationship or sufficient control to impose vicarious liability; the plaintiffs' pleadings did not disclose a sustainable cause of action against the First Defendant and striking out was justified; the High Court's refusal to strike out was overturned and the claim against the First Defendant was dismissed with costs.
29 Nov 2023

TM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES SDN BHD (yang telah mengambilalih hak-hak, aset-aset dan liabiliti-liabiliti Telekom Malaysia Berhad melalui Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh 21.2.2023) 1. ) VINOSH A/L SINNAPPU (yang menjalankan perniagaan atas nama dan g

Citation

BL-B52NCvC-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-B52NCvC-10-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Court set aside the 29.11.2023 order ab initio because defendants failed to serve the leave application on the Government as required by Order 73 r8, producing an irregular ex-parte order that is not curable by Rule 1A; additionally defendants failed to name and join the public officers alleged to be tortfeasors as required by ss 5 and 6 Government Proceedings Act 1956, and the alleged JPS Negeri is not a separate suable legal entity, therefore the third-party notice order was improperly obtained and must be set aside with costs.
4 Apr 2023

Nuur Iman Binti Rahmattullah Khan 1. ) Ampang Puteri Hospital Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Nurul Azwa Bin Mohamad Noor

Citation

BA-22NCvC-517-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-517-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PDCT was an acceptable treatment but the Second Defendant failed to obtain proper informed consent by not advising the Plaintiff of material risks (including risk of increased pain and needle bending); that failure constituted negligence by D2 warranting an award of damages; Ampang Puteri Hospital (D1) was not liable as D2 was an independent contractor and no non-delegable duty or system failure was established.