Malaysia Case Law

13 Oct 2025

HUSSEIN KHAMIS SDN BHD SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-1682-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22M-1682-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that a binding oral settlement was reached on 3 January 2023 because the plaintiff's witness made admissions contradicting the alleged agreement and contemporaneous documentary evidence (the 13 January 2023 letter) showed the matter remained under evaluation; therefore there was no evidence upon which an adverse inference could be drawn and the defendant's submission of no case to answer was upheld.

• Oral settlement agreement
• No case to answer
• Adverse inference
• Burden of proof
• Redemption statement
• Without prejudice/privileged communications

30 Jan 2023

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD PROLINK MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-227-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCvC

Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-227-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's main appeal because the High Court materially misappreciated and omitted consideration of critical evidence: OCBC lawfully exercised contractual review rights, negotiated and accepted repayment arrangements proposed by the respondent, later allowed redemption subject to conditions and conversion of receivables to invoice financing, Bank Negara regarded the review as normal, the respondent repeatedly defaulted and failed to call its primary director (warranting adverse inference). The respondent failed to prove causation and quantum of the alleged RM…

• Redemption statement
• Receivables financing (factoring)
• Lender's right to review/consolidation
• Banker-customer duty of care
• Estoppel and approbation/reprobation
• Damages quantum and remoteness

19 Jul 2022

1. ) M.AZMI BIN MD AMIN 2. ) MOHD AMINUDDIN BIN MOHD ISA 1. ) UDA LAND SDN BHD 2. ) UDA HOLDINGS BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-99-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-99-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the substantive reliefs claimed were within the monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under s65 and plaintiffs did not deny Sessions Court jurisdiction; therefore instituting the writ in the High Court constituted an abuse of process and the writ and statement of claim were struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(d).

• Jurisdiction
• Abuse of process
• Striking out
• Declaration
• Injunction
• Sessions court jurisdiction

30 Dec 2021

LEE HOCK HIN 1. ) A LOGESVARY A/P ARIKRISHNA 2. ) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its equitable discretion and declined to grant the Plaintiff the relief sought (specific performance), finding the Plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to specific performance under the circumstances; accordingly the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs as assessed by the court.

• Specific performance
• Sale and purchase of property
• Redemption statement
• Damages in lieu of specific performance
• Costs

30 Dec 2021

Lee Hock Hin 1. A. Logesvary a/p Arikrishna 2. Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA was a sham designed to disguise a loan; however the Plaintiff was not proved to be a 'moneylender' within the Moneylenders Act because the 1st Defendant failed to plead and prove the s.10OA presumption and failed to show system, repetition or evidence of interest paid; accordingly specific performance was denied, the admitted loan of RM180,000 was ordered repaid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff within three months after the Plaintiff withdraws the improper private caveat and notifies the 1st Defendant, and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum runs from the expiry of that three-…

• Specific performance
• Sham transaction
• Moneylending
• Unenforceability of illegal contracts
• Statutory presumption s.10oa
• Costs

23 Aug 2021

PROLINK MARKETING SDN BHD AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-417-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22M-417-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's claims were struck out because they were obviously unsustainable: the redemption letters did not demonstrate that the judgment sum was excessive as the facility agreements and Bank Negara guidance permit the bank to claim full selling price and grant Ibra' only on full early settlement; foreclosure proceedings are distinct and prior proceedings and an earlier struck out suit barred relitigation; therefore the writ was frivolous and vexatious and fit to be struck out under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012.

• Striking out
• Ibra' (rebate)
• Redemption statement
• Summary judgment
• Res judicata
• Winding up

NORESAH LANI V RHB BANK BHD

Citation

NORESAH LANI V RHB BANK BHD

Court

Malaysian court

Court granted the interlocutory injunction because there was a serious question to be tried about the accuracy of the redemption statement and the bank's failure to supply historical statements; the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff because auction would cause irreparable loss and the defendant was able to retrieve and produce account records.

• Injunction
• Loan agreement
• Statement of account
• Foreclosure
• Public auction
• Redemption statement