Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Novation

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2025

Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad 1. ) Platinum NanoChem Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Platinum Green Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Antara Comodities (M) Sdn.Bhd. 4. ) Asian Food Ingredients Sdn.Bhd. 5. ) Anbananthan A/L Shanmugam 6. ) Jespal Singh Deol A/L Balbir

Citation

WA-22M-643-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-643-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No binding compromise arose from the correspondence because MDV’s language was conditional, Item F reserved unfettered additional terms, essential conditions precedent (personal guarantees, share pledge, NOMAD report) remained unfulfilled, the 6th Letter envisaged execution as the event creating binding effect, and GNC’s delisting plus NOMAD resignation rendered performance unviable; consequently MDV lawfully withdrew and is entitled to RM108,772,652.67 plus profit and charges; claims in conspiracy and fraud against all defendants fail for lack of proof of agreement, unlawful means, intention…
19 Dec 2025

MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD 1. ) PLATINUM TECHSOLVE SDN BHD 2. ) GRAPHENE NANOCHEM PLC 3. ) JESPAL SINGH DEOL A/L BALBIR SINGH @ MUHAMMAD IMRAN BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) SUSHIL SINGH SIDHU A/L JOGINDER SINGH 5. ) ANBANANTHAN A/L SHANMUGAM

Citation

WA-22M-300-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-300-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No binding compromise was formed because MDV's correspondence was conditional ('agreeable to consider'), Item F reserved further terms, essential conditions precedent (guarantees, pledge, NOMAD report) were never satisfied and the draft settlement was not executed by the parties' deadline; GNC's NOMAD resignation and consequent delisting rendered the proposed RTO commercially and legally incapable of being performed and entitled MDV to withdraw; accordingly PTSB (as novated borrower), GNC (corporate guarantor) and the personal guarantors remain jointly and severally liable for RM108,772,652.6…
21 Nov 2025

GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA 4. ) Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-180-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-180-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because Appellant lacked privity with the Government; Appellant had a contractual relationship with AFSB and was paid pursuant thereto, therefore Section 71/quantum meruit did not apply against the Respondents; discrimination claim failed as the dispute was governed by private contract law and no intelligible justification for state discrimination was shown; misfeasance claim failed for lack of evidence of bad faith, targeted malice or reckless indifference by the Fourth Respondent; Fifth and Sixth Respondents lacked authority to approve the claimed rate increases under Act 6…
12 Aug 2025

1. ) Good Quantum Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Datuk Chang Kok Chuang 3. ) Right Development Activities Sdn. Bhd. Alliance Investment Bank Berhad

Citation

WA-28PW-277-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-277-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims and evidence relating to losses arising from the rejection of the PCB Restructuring Scheme were excluded because the Court of Appeal made no finding that the rejection was caused by the bank; the primary appellate declaration that the novation, repayment agreement and guarantee were void restored the status quo and precluded GQSB from asserting ownership-based claims for wrongful or negligent sale; only RM1,059,671.84 (partial payment under the repayment agreement) is recoverable to GQSB with specified interest; RDA's RM50 million claim and Datuk Chang's claims for reputational/emotion…
16 Apr 2025

SARALEANA NATTAYA BINTI AZMI TECHNA-X BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's own authenticated acknowledgements and confirmation receipt stating receipt of RM6,000,000 and RM2,452,000 respectively, and expressly declaring the purchase consideration fully and finally settled, established payment; the plaintiff failed to adduce positive evidence (e.g. expert document examiner report or prompt police report) to rebut or prove forgery, thus her claim for RM10,452,000 failed and was dismissed.
5 Feb 2025

HRA TEGUH SDN. BHD. 1. ) GOLDIX RESOURCES SDN BHD 2. ) ADLIN SHAHARUDIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-625-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-625-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to prove absence of Ministerial approval and did not call the Minister as the best witness; adverse inference was properly drawn under s114(g) Evidence Act; the Novation Agreement is an independent, enforceable contract under s38 Contracts Act and defects in the MDA, if any, affect only remedies against FIC not the Plaintiff; therefore Plaintiff's claim under the Novation and personal guarantee succeeds but damages were not awarded for lack of proof.
28 Jun 2024

Cheematrade Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Sabah Shell Petroleum Company Limited 2. ) Sarawak Shell Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-161-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim because the claims are barred by res judicata as extended by Henderson v Henderson given the earlier DSCAFF proceedings and the Plaintiff's participation therein; alternatively, the doctrine of privity of contract prevents the Plaintiff from relying on the PM-MCM Contract absent novation or other recognized exception; no duty of care, unjust enrichment or constructive trust were established on the evidence; therefore the striking out applications succeed and costs are awarded.
11 Jun 2024

Anekakiara Realty Sdn Bhd Sri Aman Murni Sdn Bhd

Citation

AB-22NCvC-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-22NCvC-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 18 r.12 to grant the Defendant further and better particulars because the Defendant's requests were limited to basic particulars of fact (who, what, where, when, how) necessary to prepare a defence, were not impermissible requests for evidence, were made before service of the defence, and the Plaintiff did not demonstrate service of the relied documents or that the requests were abusive or fishing expeditions.
20 May 2024

BANGSAR HILL MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 1. ) LIM KOK SENG 2. ) TAN CHOW HEE

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-79-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-79-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate erred in finding no mutual agreement. The Commissioner of Kuala Lumpur had power to contract under Act 190; the original tenure expiry was cured by a shareholders' resolution of 2.11.2017 and the Defendants' conduct (continuing to use services and making payments) demonstrated acceptance. Partial payments and failure to object to invoices amounted to admission and supported recovery. Therefore the appeal succeeds and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover outstanding maintenance charges and costs.
24 Mar 2024

1. ) ABEO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD 2. ) ABEO INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD. 3. ) XXXX TIA AND NOORDIN SOLUTION PTE LTD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed. The High Court held the Sessions Court judge legitimately found the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged because defendants and witnesses failed to attend trial and the appellants failed to provide a complete record enabling proper appellate review; allegations of plagiarism did not demonstrate that the judge failed to independently analyze the evidence; therefore the Sessions Court judgment awarding the plaintiff SGD140,000 with interest and costs was affirmed.