Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral contract

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2025

UNIVERSAL CITY EDUCATION SDN. BHD. U.C.I EDUCATION SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-266-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-266-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that an oral contract existed between plaintiff and defendant or that plaintiff was defendant's agent; contemporaneous documents establish relationship through Eye Knowledge, not direct privity with defendant; plaintiff failed to plead essential particulars and failed to prove requisite conditions (student tuition payments) for commission under SRA 2020; therefore no contractual or restitutionary liability of defendant for the claimed RM2,241,800 and claim is dismissed.
20 Mar 2025

SILVERPACK SDN. BHD. 1. ) Wong Sai Weng Berniaga Di Bawah Syarikat Wsw Multi Construction No. Syarikat: 001440461-m 2. ) Wong Siew Mun Berniaga Di Bawah Syarikat Venus & Mars Enterprise No. Syarikat: 002471198-v 3. ) EDGAR CHAN THIAN SENG

Citation

CB-22NCvC-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the court accepted that an oral agreement existed and was potentially enforceable, Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Defendant 1 breached the contractual terms or that the proven defects were caused by breaches attributable to Defendant 1; similarly Defendant 1 failed to prove its counterclaim on balance of probabilities. Therefore both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed with costs.
26 Jun 2023

Hitti Aluminium Sdn Bhd METALGLAZ TECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCvC-44-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence of parties' conduct, witness testimony and documentary/email material the Plaintiff established that services were performed and accepted by the Defendant and that the Defendant owed RM95,400.00; the trial magistrate’s adverse factual findings were disturbed because they were plainly wrong or reflected insufficient appreciation of the evidence, justifying appellate intervention.
12 Jan 2023

SANI BIN JALIL MUHAMMAD AUF HAZIQ BIN AHMAD POZI

Citation

CF-A72C-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CF-A72C-1-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Application dismissed because the pleadings do not disclose any cause of action against the proposed substitute (Saiful Nizam bin Sani) and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to proceed against a party he does not wish to sue; substitution is inappropriate where no case against the proposed party appears from the pleadings.
4 Nov 2022

KABILAN A/L ANASALAM 1. ) VEERASINGAM A/L MUTHUSAMY 2. ) METRO OUTSOURCE SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-584-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-584-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found an oral agreement existed: Plaintiff introduced and procured the Heineken contract; contemporaneous testimony and corroborating witnesses proved the 1st Defendant promised a 50:50 profit share; the RM10,000 paid was part payment, not a loan; Defendants failed to produce profit and loss accounts thereby justifying an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; consequently Defendants breached the oral agreement and Plaintiff is entitled to half of proven profits, quantified at RM824,730.32 plus interest and costs.
7 Sept 2022

GROUP SEVEN SDN BHD 1. ) LAMAN PESONA SDN BHD 2. ) Ivan Ong Kang Jun

Citation

CB-22NCvC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-11-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found an oral contract existed and the 2nd Defendant failed to show any authorization by or ratification on behalf of Group Seven; under s65 Companies Act 2016 a purported pre‑incorporation contract renders the person purporting to act personally liable in absence of ratification; there is no evidence of triable issues on these points, therefore summary judgment against the 2nd Defendant was appropriate and granted.
30 Jun 2022

MOHD MUZANI BIN MUHAMED MOHD KASMALI BIN IBRAHIM

Citation

TA-A72NCvC-89-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-A72NCvC-89-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved existence of an oral subcontract and that he built, completed and delivered five units; the defendant received payments from MARA/SPNB and failed to pay the outstanding balance, resulting in unjust enrichment; defendant's failure to call witnesses permitted adverse inferences; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for the outstanding sum and interest with costs on the prescribed scale.
14 Jun 2021

VIJAYAKUMAR A/L CHELLAPAN Berniaga sebagai RINGLET TRADING CO (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 243977-U) PARTIBAN A/L THANIGASALAM Berniaga sebagai TN SHAVANTHIRAJ ENTERPRISE (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: IPO432013-V)

Citation

AD-A72NCC-24-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AD-A72NCC-24-12/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved existence of an oral agreement and supply of 200 gas cylinders by admissible business records (Exhibits P4, P6) and payment evidence; the defendant's denials were bare and unsupported and key witness not called, permitting inference against defendant under s114(g); accordingly defendant liable for RM92,059.00 with interest and costs as ordered.
7 Jan 2021

1. ) THOMAS VARKKI A/L M.V. VARKKI 2. ) AMARJIT SINGH A/L KARTAR SINGH KUNCI SEMANGAT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-384-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-384-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found an oral agreement existed that Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs RM20 per square foot; contemporaneous payment vouchers, WhatsApp messages and solicitors' correspondence corroborated this; no actionable misrepresentation was proved and the Defendant’s unpleaded illegality defence under the Estate Agents Act was rejected. Judgment was entered for Plaintiffs for RM545,720 with interest and costs; Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
29 Jul 2020

1. CHUAN HOOI KEAT (NO. K/P: 650530-10-6529) 2. LEONG WAI YI (NO. K/P: 760809-14-5186) TEE YAM (NO. K/P: 580307-10-5485)

Citation

WA-22NCC-93-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-93-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The omission of the exact date of the alleged oral agreement did not render the Statement of Claim obviously unsustainable; the pleading contained sufficient material facts (approximate date, specific payments, cheque references, amounts and demand notice) to disclose a reasonable cause of action and the dispute must proceed to full trial; strike-out was therefore inappropriate.