Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quiet enjoyment

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2026

M&C PRECISION SDN BHD PENGANGKUTAN TEY SELATAN SDN BHD PENCELAH MCLEAN PLASTIC ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-24NCvC-1343-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-1343-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene is dismissed because the proposed intervener lacked a real, direct and substantial legal interest (its rights derived solely from a new lease with the defendant entered into with knowledge of the existing dispute), its presence is unnecessary for a fair and effective disposal of the dispute between the existing parties, and refusal to intervene did not deny procedural fairness; costs RM3,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Jan 2026

1. ) LAI CHEE MIN 2. ) PHOONG SIEW MAE WONG CHOY MEE

Citation

BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellants established possession of Lots 32 and 60 on the balance of probabilities by oral testimony and contemporaneous documentary and photographic evidence; the Respondent’s restaurant operations produced persistent oily smoke/odour, prolonged preparatory noise and parking/traffic disruption that, in the residential locality, exceeded tolerable levels and constituted actionable private nuisance. The Sessions Court erred in requiring formal title and in rejecting the nuisance claim. Appeal allowed, Sessions Court judgment set aside, and a permanent injunction, costs and referral for as…
21 Mar 2025

TAN SOW MOOI 1. ) RAINBOW PARADISE BEACH RESORT HOTEL 2. ) CHAMPSURF SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding the Sessions Court was plainly wrong for failing to evaluate evidence against the legal elements of trespass and nuisance, for misapplying judicial notice regarding service of the Notice, and for disregarding the legal effect of the appellant's long lease; accordingly the appellant was entitled to vacant possession, decontamination of the unit, refund of maintenance/service charges from July 2020, costs orders, and the quantum of damages was remitted to the Sessions Court for assessment.
5 Feb 2024

1. ) Presto Supermarkets (Subang) Sdn Bhd [Business Registration No.: 938843-t] 2. ) Azrin @ Farah Azrin Binti Zuhdi [Identity Card No.: ] [Othman Hashim & Co 3. ) XXXX ATTIC HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1248-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1248-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the High Court that Attic did not commit a fundamental breach or negligence sufficient to justify Presto's early termination; the directors' guarantee was valid and enforceable; reinstatement costs and unpaid rent and loss for unexpired term were recoverable; however double rent award was set aside because Presto had handed over physical possession (14 July 2015) and therefore was not 'holding over' under s.28(4) CLA despite failing to reinstate to bare state; Part C Beca report was inadmissible absent maker and primary evidence.
7 Nov 2023

PEMPETISYEN XXXX XXXX

Citation

33-95-03/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

33-95-03/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order operated as a binding agreement enforceable by leave to issue a writ of possession; the phrase 'tanpa sebarang gangguan' required the Petitioner to vacate so the Respondent and three children in her custody could occupy the matrimonial home without disturbance. The Petitioner's delay and personal circumstances did not excuse non‑compliance; accordingly the application for leave to issue a writ of possession was allowed and costs were awarded to the Respondent.
6 Jun 2023

PUSAT GERAK PAMER SDN. BHD. YUNDA EXPRESS SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12B-112-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-112-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts and evidence the appellant (landlord) unlawfully restricted the respondent's access to the leased public bonded warehouse and imposed an extraneous requirement (a Customs confirmation letter) not contained in the lease; the respondent was not shown to be the importer/consignee of the seized containers and thus not responsible for customs irregularities; therefore the landlord breached the Tenancy Agreement, the tenancy was effectively terminated by the landlord's conduct and the respondent is entitled to recovery of deposits, refund of April 2020 rent and damages for loss proved;…
27 Mar 2023

TAHB AUTO SDN BHD LGM PROPERTIES CORPORATION

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-65-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-65-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court concluded the termination notice dated 8.6.2016 was valid and sent to an address known to the defendants; the term 'building' in the recital and parties' conduct meant the lease covered the building and the land on which it stood (not the entire two lots); defendants were aware of the third party occupation before contracting and are estopped from claiming loss of quiet enjoyment; defendants held over from 7.9.2016 and thus the landlord was entitled to claim double rent for the 21-month period; appeal dismissed.
1 Jan 2023

KEMUDI TIMUR ELEKTRONIK SDN BHD KB SMART DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

DA-22NCvC-49-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-49-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant breached the PJB by failing to deliver vacant possession with CCC within the contractual 24 months; Plaintiff is entitled to pursue general and special damages under Section 74 in addition to LAD where losses are proven; Plaintiff failed to prove speculative loss of rental income and diminution but proved loss of quiet enjoyment and inconvenience and specific proved costs; therefore Plaintiff's partial claims succeed and Defendant is liable for specified damages, interest and costs.
13 Sept 2022

North West Depoh Sdn Bhd Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS)

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1312-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1312-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff, as a tenant who had made substantial investments and whose lease was extended to March 2023, possessed a caveatable proprietary interest; there was a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the caveat; therefore the validity of Form 19C was extended to 16-1-2023 and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Oct 2021

1. ) GOGUNG FUSION RESTAURANT (KLCC) SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 968520-P) 2. ) HWANG IL ROK (NRIC NO: 530228-89-5049) 3. ) KIM CHUN AIL (NRIC NO: 531010-89-5016) SURIA KLCC SDN BHD [REGISTRATION NO: 199001017281 (208950-T)]

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-116-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-116-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed: summary judgment was proper because Respondent commenced proceedings before the COVID-19 Act came into effect and section 10 preserved those proceedings; Appellants failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable defence (no force majeure clause, no estoppel, security deposit properly available under lease, guarantees enforceable, mediation not mandatory, and no breach of quiet enjoyment), therefore there were no real issues requiring trial.