Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral agreement

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

EVELYN SHOBA & PARTNERS 1. ) ARULANANTHA JOTHI A/P MUNIANDY 2. ) M. UTHTHAMACH SUDAR 3. ) P.M. SATHIA SUDAR A/L MUNIANDY 4. ) P.M. UNMAICH SUDAR A/L MUNIANDY

Citation

AB-A72NCvC-33-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-A72NCvC-33-03/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an offer of specific fee amounts was communicated and accepted by defendants or that any enforceable written agreement existed under s116 LPA 1976; there was no recoverable settlement amount to which the agreed 20% contingency could attach and the contested RM45,000 total was a unilateral post hoc calculation by plaintiff, therefore the claim for RM31,180 is dismissed.
29 Sept 2025

SPRING ENERGY SDN. BHD. JAGUH SAKTI SDN. BHD.

Citation

TA-A52NCvC-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52NCvC-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted Plaintiff discharged burden of proof: there was a binding oral agreement incorporating the pleaded terms (supported by drafts and conduct), Plaintiff paid RM300,000 and extracted 30,895.20 m3 as evidenced by documentary detail and survey accepted by the court, Defendant failed to adequately rebut quantity/value evidence or produce necessary witnesses/documents (including OGL proof) and failed to cross-examine on material points; therefore Defendant must refund the balance of the advance after deducting the purchase price, with interest and costs.
25 Jul 2025

1. ) SEMASA SENTRAL SDN BHD (P dalam Tindakan Asal & D1 dalam Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) GLOBAL FUSION SDN BHD 2. ) Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad 3. ) MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (D3 dalam Tuntutan Ba

Citation

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found D3 and D4 had not taken disqualifying steps in the proceedings and that the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award covered the dispute, but in the exercise of its discretion under s 10(2) the court dismissed the stay applications because D3 and D4 failed to propose or justify conditions to address the reality of multiple non‑parties (consent unlikely), selective invocation of arbitration would cause procedural injustice, risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings, and therefore a stay was inappropriate.
22 Jul 2025

1. ) TIEW CHERN WEE 2. ) LIM MEI LING CHEN ENG KEONG

Citation

BA-12B-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's decision was set aside because it failed to address the agreed issues and its factual findings were unsafe; the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a binding oral agreement with sufficiently certain terms, failed to prove contributions and entitlement to the claimed sum, and the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
16 May 2025

SHINITH PALOLATHIL ANURA BANDARA HERATH

Citation

BA-11BNCvC-23-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCvC-23-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate correctly found there was insufficient evidence of offer, acceptance and consideration to establish a binding oral agreement to reimburse the renovation costs; the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities and the Magistrate's findings were not plainly wrong, thus the appeal is dismissed and the Magistrate's decision affirmed.
27 Jan 2025

ABDUL JALIL BIN ABDUL MUTHALIB KEKATONG SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved payment of RM40,000 to DMIS on behalf of the Defendant and proved an oral agreement (friendly loan) that the Defendant would repay when it had funds; limitation did not bar the claim because repayment was conditional on demand and Plaintiff made effective demand only after Defendant became capable of repayment following the interpleader order on 27 November 2023, therefore the writ filed 20 December 2023 was within six years.
13 Dec 2024

Hameeth Shah Bin Abdul Wahid Raja Abdul Wafy Bin Raja Muhammad Rooshidi

Citation

AA-A72NCC-293-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCC-293-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove existence of the alleged investment agreement or terms obliging defendant to repay RM100,000 plus 10% profit; plaintiff bore the burden throughout, gave inconsistent and non-credible testimony, and offered insufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence; on the balance of probabilities the defendant's version was preferred, therefore the claim is dismissed.
13 Dec 2024

Hameeth Shah Bin Abdul Wahid Raja Abdul Wafy Bin Raja Muhammad Rooshidi

Citation

AA-A72NCC-293-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCC-293-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an investment agreement or that the RM100,000 was a loan/investment repayable with 10% profit; plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof under ss 101 and 103 Evidence Act 1950; accordingly the claim is dismissed.
5 Dec 2024

CHIN CHI MING 1. ) LIM HON LOON 2. ) TAN KUAN YANG, ADDREW

Citation

JA-12BNCC-9-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-9-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the recycling business was not proved to be an essential term of the oral investment agreement; plaintiffs failed to establish a separate RM260,000 investment distinct from purchase funds; because the agreement was not validly terminated prior to Jan 2020 Defendant remained liable for instalments Jan–May 2020; however Defendant is entitled to repayment/set‑off for instalments and maintenance he paid from Jan 2016 until he occupied the unit (Jan 2016–Nov 2018) totaling RM350,000 and RM10,500 respectively; reinstatement cost for the boundary fence shall be shared; plaintiffs' pen…
5 Dec 2024

1. ) WONG JIAN ON 2. ) CHEAH LEAN MING 1. ) TAN SWEE LEONG 2. ) GO YEW KIAT 3. ) LINGKARAN EW SDN BHD 4. ) LINGKARAN KUALITI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-673-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-673-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities there was no joint venture between the parties at the inception of the Penang and Banting projects in September 2019; the relationship was contractual (rental of machines, contractor/sub-contractor) and payments were loans or rentals; a joint venture only came into existence upon the incorporation of Lingkaran EW Sdn Bhd in December 2020 and applies only to works undertaken after that incorporation (Ijok, Kepong, Cyberjaya, Rasa).