Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quiet possession

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2022

BMW CREDIT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) LEARSIM SDN BHD 2. ) SAYYID SHAH BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-12ANCC-4-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-4-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the defendants breached express obligations in the hire purchase agreement by allowing the vehicle to be sold/transfered and failed to dispute the outstanding amount, therefore they raised no triable issue; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and the appeal was allowed.
28 Jun 2021

WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BL-12B-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12B-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: defendant 3 failed on balance of probabilities to prove breach causing the alleged losses; documentary evidence without makers' testimony was insufficient to establish orders and losses; credible evidence (including TNB witness) showed electricity interruption was due to meter tampering; appellate intervention was unwarranted as trial judge was not plainly wrong.
19 Oct 2020

MOHD KHAIRULDI BIN AB HALIM CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-12AM-3-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12AM-3-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The counterclaim was clearly unsustainable as a matter of law because the financier was not obliged to ensure customs duties were paid or to guarantee quiet possession/good title; therefore the counterclaim was frivolous/vexatious and properly struck out under O.18 r.19 KKM 2012.
10 Sept 2020

TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR BIN TUAN YUSUF 1. AZAHAR BIN MOHD SHARIFF 2. TENGKU MOHAMAD RIDZMAN 3. DATO’ TENGKU ROZANNA PETRI BINTI TENGKU MOHAMED NASRUN 4. ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENYEKAT DAN/ATAU MENGHALANG DAN/ATAU MENCEGAH KEMASUK

Citation

DA-22NCVC-64-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-64-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The interim injunction was discharged because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a bona fide serious issue to be tried or to justify that damages would be inadequate; the balance of convenience favoured the defendants as the documents primarily related to the 5th defendant’s business and continuation of the injunction would prejudice its operations; the plaintiff’s delay and failure to disclose his former role as CEO undermined his case.

Malaysia Case Law

BMW CREDIT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) LEARSIM SDN BHD 2. ) SAYYID SHAH BIN ABDULLAH

WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD

MOHD KHAIRULDI BIN AB HALIM CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR BIN TUAN YUSUF 1. AZAHAR BIN MOHD SHARIFF 2. TENGKU MOHAMAD RIDZMAN 3. DATO’ TENGKU ROZANNA PETRI BINTI TENGKU MOHAMED NASRUN 4. ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENYEKAT DAN/ATAU MENGHALANG DAN/ATAU MENCEGAH KEMASUK