Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Partnership liability

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

JOHNNY ANG 1. ) LIM LI LIAN 2. ) LIM WING WAI PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted plaintiff's contemporaneous documentary and video evidence, admitted the video through its maker with s90A certification, found Defendant 1 received the cash and validly signed the friendly loan agreement and cheque, rejected Defendant 1's coercion defence for lack of contemporaneous evidence and inconsistent conduct (including failure to report to police and failure to call the lawyer), and held Defendant 2 not liable as partner because the loan was a personal transaction outside the partnership's ordinary business and no authority was proven.
31 Jul 2025

MUHAMAD SAMSUL NIZAM BIN SOHHIMI NINJA LOGISTICS SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-12ANCvC-1-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-12ANCvC-1-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is allowed because material disputes of fact—notably irreconcilable discrepancies in the quantum of debt and the absence of the Appellant's signature on the core contract—render the matter unsuitable for summary determination under Order 14A; the unstamped defect was subsequently cured by stamping but does not resolve the triable issue of consensus ad idem, therefore the summary judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted for full trial.
22 Jan 2024

1. ) Siva Kumar A/L Jeyapalan 2. ) AMMSA Property Sdn. Bhd. Firwas Sdn. Bhd PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K.RAGAVAN 2. ) Shoba A/p Govindasamy 3. ) Jasim Sura Puthucheary (D2 Dlm Tuntuan Balas Thevandran)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found negotiations were aborted, no binding SPA was concluded with Firwas, the defendants and associated agents acted fraudulently and in conspiracy, the caveat was wrongfully lodged; accordingly plaintiffs' claims and Thevan's counterclaim dismissed, Firwas's counterclaim allowed, removal of caveat ordered and damages (general, exemplary) and indemnity costs awarded.
28 Aug 2023

MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA 1. ) MICHAEL JOSEPH CARVALHO 2. ) MAGDALENE ANNE CARVALHO

Citation

02(f)-5-02/2023(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-5-02/2023(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Paragraph (2)(b) of the Bar Council Guidelines is inconsistent with and therefore ultra vires subsections (8) and (9) of section 80 of the Legal Profession Act 1976; the Bar Council may make procedural rules but not substantive restrictions that exclude claims arising from dishonest acts by advocates and solicitors practicing in partnerships; claimants may apply to the Compensation Fund for such losses and the Council must consider applications in accordance with s80.
30 May 2023

Suzilawati Binti Sidek 1. ) Hafizatulazna Binti Mohd Unit 2. ) Tetuan S Mathavan & Nur Hafizah 3. ) Rosmawate Binti Ahmad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-14-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-14-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Court of Appeal judgment is final and this High Court lacked jurisdiction to declare it void on the pleaded grounds; plaintiff failed to prove actual fraud, professional negligence or that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening the matter, and defendants had acted properly for the Ampang branch; accordingly plaintiff's claims against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
20 Jul 2022

1. ) JASMI BIN YUSOF 2. ) KHALMA ROS BINTI KHOLI 1. ) MUHAMMAD OSMAN BIN KATERAN 2. ) MOHAMED SAZALI BIN ABDUL AZIZ 3. ) TETUAN SAZALI & LIM

Citation

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held there were triable issues whether the partner's conduct was in the ordinary course of the firm's business so the third defendant's defence could not be struck out on affidavits alone; however the counterclaim for defamation failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not allege publication of defamatory statements to third parties beyond the pleadings and thus was liable to be struck out.
3 Nov 2020

NSG AYAM SEGAR (M) SDN BHD NO SYARIKAT :903361-P 1. ) LAW CHIN HAU NO. KP : 59051-02-5399 2. ) IDAH BINTI HUSSIN NO. KP : 700612-03-5210

Citation

NA-A52-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A52-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found on the evidence (invoices, delivery affidavits, long course of dealings and issuance of a cheque for the specific outstanding amount) that an implied contract existed and plaintiff proved delivery and acceptance; defendant failed to show any triable issue or meritorious defence. Summary judgment was therefore entered for plaintiff for RM102,131.00 with costs of RM2,000.00.
16 Jun 2020

FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD 1. MOHD KHELMY BIN MUKHTARUDDIN 2. MOHD NIZAR BIN SUIB

Citation

BI-A52NCVC-34-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BI-A52NCVC-34-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the SSM search and the 14.5.2019 letter admitted the debt; the Amended Defence was a bare denial and an afterthought raising no triable issue; therefore the Defence was struck out under O.18 r.19 ROC and judgment was ordered against both defendants with costs.
AW YONG WAI CHOO & ORS. V. ARIEF TRADING SDN. BHD. & ANOR.

Citation

AW YONG WAI CHOO & ORS. V. ARIEF TRADING SDN. BHD. & ANOR.
Court

Malaysian court

On the balance of probabilities the written P4 and the parties' subsequent conduct established a limited partnership between the corporation and the developer for the housing development; P1 agreements were enforceable despite r.11(1) by Federal Court precedent; specific performance of the purchase agreements was ordered against both defendants; however, because the corporation later completed the houses to superior specifications and benefited plaintiffs, the court excused the corporation from liability for liquidated damages for late delivery, awarding such indemnity only against the develo…