Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitation costs

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

POWER KK RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) PEARL AMRIN SDN BHD 2. ) HAMDAN BIN MOHAMED DALI 3. ) PEARL AMRIN ENTERPRISE

Citation

JA-22NCvC-26-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-26-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff admitted non-payment from May 2020 while continuing extraction and breached depth and rehabilitation obligations; D1 validly terminated the Agreement under Clause 8 or s40 Contracts Act; the RM2.1 million deposit may be retained to meet rehabilitation and related costs and the RM1.4 million ganti pokok has been repaid by deductions and is not refundable; corporate veil not lifted; counterclaim for RM190,204.80 allowed; quantum of any rehabilitation costs beyond retained deposits to be assessed.
7 Aug 2023

1. ) DEENESHWARAN A/L SELLATHURAI 2. ) ANJALA DEVI A/P N MUTHU 1. ) NURSHAMIMIE SYUHADA BINTI RAIMEY - seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui bapanya RAIMEY BIN A RAHMAN sebagai wakil litigasi beliau 2. ) Rahime Bin Harun

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-139-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-139-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellate court found no palpable or material error in the Sessions Court's factual findings or application of law: the Sessions Court permissibly accepted the chemist's evidence and other material evidence to find a collision and apportion liability 50:50 between driver and rider, while holding defendants 100% liable to the innocent pillion; the quantum awards were grounded in medical reports and expert recommendations and were not excessive or based on wrong principle; appeal dismissed and lower court judgment upheld.
9 Feb 2023

XXXX 1. ) SHAHRUL IDZWAN BIN ZULKIFLI 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara

Citation

CB-12B-10-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12B-10-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal in part because the trial judge failed to properly consider and weigh the expert medical reports demonstrating permanent deficits and ongoing treatment needs, and erred in rejecting future losses and certain special damages on speculative grounds and on unsupported assumptions about availability of equivalent public services; accordingly the court revised quantum and awarded specific sums for future loss, ophthalmic care, future medications and equipment/treatment while upholding the trial judge's rejection of counselling costs.

Malaysia Case Law

POWER KK RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) PEARL AMRIN SDN BHD 2. ) HAMDAN BIN MOHAMED DALI 3. ) PEARL AMRIN ENTERPRISE

1. ) DEENESHWARAN A/L SELLATHURAI 2. ) ANJALA DEVI A/P N MUTHU 1. ) NURSHAMIMIE SYUHADA BINTI RAIMEY - seorang kurang upaya yang menuntut melalui bapanya RAIMEY BIN A RAHMAN sebagai wakil litigasi beliau 2. ) Rahime Bin Harun

XXXX 1. ) SHAHRUL IDZWAN BIN ZULKIFLI 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara