Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre‑judgment and post‑judgment interest

Legal area

Court

5 Jun 2025

1. ) Berjaya Land Berhad 2. ) BERJAYA CITY SDN BHD 3. ) SELAT MAKMUR SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Pengarah Pejabat Tanah & Galian Negeri Selangor 4. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Negeri Selangor 5. )

Citation

BA-25-8-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-8-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants proved liability for failure to re-table but only established recoverable loss for (a) actual annual extension payments to Selangor Turf Club (RM36,000,000) causally linked to respondents' representations and (b) nominal damages for additional costs incurred implementing the Industrial and Business Scheme (RM2,330,946.30). Claims for loss of profit on Sungai Besi, increased construction costs for New Centre, and loss of land appreciation/opportunity were speculative, insufficiently proven or premised on outcomes of NPPC beyond respondents' control and therefore dismissed. Pre-judgm…
3 Nov 2022

STARFLEX ENERGY (M) SDN. BHD. GEMA ANTARA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22C-41-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-41-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held each PO accepted by the plaintiff constituted a separate enforceable contract; SCAN was authentic and SP1 had authority to approve it (actual, implied and ostensible), proving 95% completion. Milestone (e) did not bar recovery for the proved 95% work and an implied term required defendant to pay for that work. Plaintiff's demobilization was lawful due to defendant's non-payment; defendant breached by withholding the balance. Plaintiff entitled to payment for balance (RM624,625) and for three additional pumps (RM93,876) with pre-judgment interest at 5% p.a. from due date to judg…
16 Jul 2021

LEE SIWEE BU FAIRVIEW INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL SUBANG SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-9572-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-9572-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The transfer letter issued by the defendant constituted a binding variation/decision under the contract (per Clause 5.6) that offered parents the option to withdraw; the plaintiff validly exercised the withdrawal option and served the withdrawal notice in accordance with that letter and the defendant failed to notify non-acceptance, therefore the defendant must refund the security deposit to the plaintiff.
24 Nov 2020

1. ) LIANMARK SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 821509-K) 2. ) (BY ORIGINAL ACTION) AL-AMBIA SDN. Bhd. (Co. No.: 76525-A) 1. ) AL-AMBIA SDN. Bhd. (Co. No.: 76525-A) 2. ) (BY ORIGINAL ACTION) LIANMARK SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 821509-K)

Citation

22C-2-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22C-2-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts and documents the plaintiff proved performance and completion of the works; Clause 7 breach (failure to obtain on-site verification) was an innominate, non-essential term that did not deprive the defendant of substantially the whole benefit; defendant affirmed the contract by issuing payment vouchers and making payments and is estopped from terminating; defendant failed to give required defect notices and failed to mitigate so its rectification, supervision and LAD claims fail; defendant proved limited counterclaim items supported by documents; plaintiff entitled to claimed sums,…
24 Nov 2020

1. ) LIANMARK SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 821509-K) 2. ) AL-AMBIA SDN. Bhd. (Co. No.: 76525-A) 1. ) AL-AMBIA SDN. Bhd. (Co. No.: 76525-A) (BY ORIGINAL ACTION) 2. ) LIANMARK SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 821509-K)

Citation

BA-22C-2-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-2-01/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved on balance that it completed the contracted works and defendant breached the subcontract by failing to pay; clause 7 breach was an innominate term that did not entitle defendant to terminate and defendant by conduct (payments and vouchers) affirmed the contract and is estopped from relying on set-off/back charges; defendant failed to give required defect notices and to mitigate, so most counterclaims fail; plaintiff entitled to retention sum and net judgment; interest and costs awarded as exercised by the court.
10 Sept 2020

Fadly Afiq Bin Fahmimahzan 1. ) Shereena A/P Vijayan 2. ) Vijayan A/P K.K. Pillai

Citation

WA-A73KJ-2588-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A73KJ-2588-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the cause of the collision indeterminate and apportioned liability equally (50:50); damages were assessed but limited to RM100,000 due to Magistrates' Court jurisdictional ceiling; interest and costs were awarded as ordered; payment into plaintiff's solicitors' client account was permitted.
YAP YEW CHEONG & ANOR V. DIRGA NIAGA (SELANGOR) SDN BHD

Citation

YAP YEW CHEONG & ANOR V. DIRGA NIAGA (SELANGOR) SDN BHD
Court

Malaysian court

The court held the contractual 12% provision was an agreed term enforceable between the parties; even if characterised as a penalty it falls within s.75 permitting recovery of reasonable compensation up to the contractual sum and, because delay in redemption produced losses with no known measurable standard, the contractual figure was reasonable; the 12% was compensatory (not unlawful compound interest) and plaintiffs were entitled to pre‑ and post‑judgment interest; consequently the defendant's appeal was dismissed.
LEE POH CHOO v SEA HOUSING CORPORATION SB

Citation

LEE POH CHOO v SEA HOUSING CORPORATION SB
Court

Malaysian court

Res judicata did not apply because the first suit sought specific performance and damages limited to the period up to its filing; damages accruing after that filing date constitute a different cause of action and may be recovered in a subsequent suit. Plaintiff therefore entitled to damages for 16 June 1977 to 10 June 1982 and interest as awarded.