Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Power of attorney

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2026

1. ) Kang Keang Huang 2. ) Chan Chin Yeow Cityvilla Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPAs are valid and binding because DDSB acted within the express authority conferred by the JVA and PA to sell Block A units, Cityvilla contracted and undertook to be bound by such acts (JVA Clauses 9.1 and 11.2), the indoor management rule protects the Plaintiffs as innocent third parties, the purchase prices were discharged by accord and satisfaction evidenced by contemporaneous Letters of Discount and Confirmation, and Cityvilla ratified the transactions by acquiescence; accordingly specific performance and LAD are ordered.
13 Jan 2026

1. ) PEMBINAAN LERCAST SDN. BHD 2. ) LERCAST ALDEWAY SDN. BHD. CHEK SAM BINTI SALLEH

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1311-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-1311-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the High Court had erred in some factual appreciation but concluded the Project was no longer viable; applying its statutory powers under s69(4) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 the court declared the Joint Venture Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, Manager Agreement and Power of Attorney terminated forthwith, varied the High Court judgment accordingly and made consequential orders (return of title, removal of caveat, refund of the specified deposit, no damages awarded and parties to bear their own costs). The Supplemental Agreement's mutual termi…
10 Nov 2025

SUNTHARARUBAN A/L SELVANAYAGAM 1. ) CLIFFORD DASS 2. ) ALICIA JOANNE DASS 3. ) VALRIE JOANNE DASS

Citation

WA-22NCvC-353-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-353-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found there were serious issues to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo because the Defendants could use the PA to dispose of the property and damages would be an inadequate remedy; accordingly interlocutory injunctions were issued restraining the Defendants from using the PA and restraining the Plaintiff from disposing of the property, with Defendants permitted to remain in occupation, until disposal of the suit or further order.
5 Nov 2025

NORAINI BINTI MOKHTAR 1. ) ZAIDI BIN MD YUSOFF 2. ) YUAN TRADING & AGENCY SDN BHD 3. ) YEAP PEI LEE 4. ) MUHAMMAD SHAKIRRULLAH BIN LUKMAN 5. ) NG CHAN WANG 6. ) WONG TAI HAU 7. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kulim

Citation

KA-21NCvC-8-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-21NCvC-8-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove actual fraud or non est factum on the balance of probabilities; contemporaneous documents, statutory declarations and WhatsApp communications established a valid sale for RM200,000 and that Zaidi is a bona fide purchaser with indefeasible title; solicitor (D6) and Land Administrator (D7) did not breach duty, hence Suit 8 is dismissed and Suit 16 succeeds for vacant possession and damages.
29 Oct 2025

Shahrel Azizi bin Saad Harun bin Ramli

Citation

KA-22NCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence (the executed SPA, payment acknowledgment, possession, registered Power of Attorney and charge, and the Defendant's admissions) that the transaction was a sale, the deceased was the beneficial owner, and the Plaintiff's claim to recover trust property is not barred by limitation under section 22 Limitation Act 1953; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim was allowed and the Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
29 Oct 2025

Shahrel Azizi bin Saad Harun bin Ramli

Citation

KA-22NCvC-7-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-7-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence and terms of the SPA that the transaction was a genuine sale (buyer paid full price, possession given, SPA recitals and clauses, and a Power of Attorney and charge were protective measures pending expiry of a ten‑year restriction). The Defendant's loan narrative was not credible and inconsistent with documents and earlier admissions. Because the claim involved recovery of trust property by a beneficiary, section 22 Limitation Act 1953 excluded the 12‑year limitation; therefore the Plaintiff's claim succeeded and the Defendant's counterclaim failed.
13 Aug 2025

MOHD SUFFIAN BIN DAUD ROSHAMIDI BIN HALIM

Citation

DA-24NCvC-104-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-104-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove any caveatable interest: the purported power of attorney was executed after the mortgage, was not registered, and there was no evidence of the asserted consideration; defendant did not file necessary statutory Form 19B or other evidentiary proof. Plaintiff, as registered owner and aggrieved person, demonstrated that on the balance of convenience the caveat unjustifiably obstructed his registered rights. Accordingly the caveat must be removed and damages and costs awarded to plaintiff.
13 Aug 2025

GHANTIMATHY A/P KANNAPIRAN ANNAMMAH A/P PONNUSAMY

Citation

BA-22NCvC-227-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-227-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Power of Attorney was not expressed to be irrevocable nor supported by valuable consideration it abated on the donor's death; Clause 24 was an imperfect uncompleted gift of immovable property which equity will not perfect and there was no factual basis (such as appointment as executor or completed conveyance) to invoke Strong v Bird; therefore the Power of Attorney did not survive and the purported gift has no legal effect.
28 Jul 2025

LIEW WAI LOY LIEW WAI HAN

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-98-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-98-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead with requisite particularity the elements and remedies for a constructive trust, failed to seek declaratory relief invalidating the transfer, failed to adduce evidence on the source of purchase funds (permitting s 114(g) inference), and the PA’s language reasonably authorized execution of transfers; no appealable error or plain wrongness by the trial judge was shown.
28 Jul 2025

PALOH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

Citation

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-203-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There are substantial disputes of fact (including the legitimacy of director removals/appointments, alleged family agreement on liabilities and validity of the Power of Attorney) that cannot be resolved on affidavits alone and require oral evidence and cross-examination; therefore the Originating Summons procedure is inappropriate and the appropriate remedy is to strike out the OS with liberty to file afresh (with costs subject to allocatur).