Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repudiation

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

NAJD AL-ATHEER TRADING CO BIOMAX RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-232-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-232-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff repudiated the contract for the remaining three containers; contemporaneous documents show actual deposit received was USD55,246.95; Plaintiff failed to prove defects or losses due to lack of independent inspection, expert evidence and corroborative documentary proof; the deposit (less than 10% of the remaining shipments) is reasonable and therefore forfeitable; consequence: Plaintiff's claim dismissed, Defendant's counterclaim allowed.
2 Oct 2025

SILVERLAND CAPITAL SDN BHD WEGROW GLOBAL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-207-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-207-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Heads of Terms was found binding by part performance; the Plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide cause of action for arrears exceeding RM2.29 million; the Defendant's repudiation combined with unannounced removal of movable assets and threats to vacate established an inference of intent to obstruct execution; accordingly all three statutory limbs of s19(1)(c) were satisfied and attachment before judgment was ordered as interim preventive security.
23 Jun 2025

UPAYA HARAPAN SDN BHD MALAYA MUSHROOM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-2646-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-2646-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The RM40,000 was a deposit properly forfeitable because the contractual documents so described it, the Defendant had commenced performance and was only slightly delayed, and the Plaintiff unilaterally cancelled without notice; forfeiture was reasonable under s75. The Defendant's counterclaim for the remaining RM40,000 failed because the balance was payable only upon delivery (which did not occur) and the Defendant did not prove any loss with documentary evidence.
30 Apr 2025

SPECMA SOLUTIONS SDN BHD PERMAI BIRU SDN. BHD.

Citation

KF-A52NCC-10-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KF-A52NCC-10-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant failed to prove misrepresentation, fraud or that the main equipment was defective; the written contract governs, FOC items were collateral and non‑mandatory obligations (including installation) were not imposed; therefore Defendant remains indebted to Plaintiff for RM150,000 and Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
24 Mar 2025

Timberbrand Sdn Bhd PRS Forest Management (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-411-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-411-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that by conduct and acquiescence the Defendant treated the contract as continuing and thereby set time at large; the Defendant's termination on 18-2-2020 without giving notice to make time of the essence was a wrongful repudiation of a subsisting contract, entitling the Plaintiff to restitution of the sums paid (RM600,000) with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim for speculative future-rubber profits failed for lack of cogent evidence and mitigation.
27 Jan 2025

1. ) CITRASAMA PROJEK SDN BHD 2. ) BENUA EHSAN SDN BHD 1. ) Perbadanan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 2. ) PERMODALAN NEGERI SELANGOR BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-223-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-223-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the JVAs expired on their contractual dates (23.7.2008 for JVA1 and 15.6.2010 for JVA2); plaintiffs failed to prove that any valid extension existed or that defendants repudiated or fraudulently terminated the agreements; limitation was not fatal to the claim (proceedings tolled) but plaintiffs in any event failed to prove payment of alleged expenses, entitlement to damages or proprietary interests; doctrine of legitimate expectation does not assist in private contract claims. Consequently plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs RM15,000.
3 Jan 2025

ENG HAN PROPERTY SDN BHD SALAMON RAJ A/L ADAICKALAM

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1821-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1821-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant breached the SPA by failing to pay the outstanding purchase price; under the SPA (notably clause 6(4) and clause 11) the Plaintiff validly terminated the SPA; Public Bank Berhad as financier was not a necessary party to this enforcement of the SPA and the Plaintiff was entitled to consequential declaratory orders including removal of the charge and retransfer of title; costs awarded to Plaintiff RM10,000.
23 Dec 2024

DELMA TRADING 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan 2. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan

Citation

DA-21NCvC-17-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-17-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 23.09.2007 approval letter together with payment created a contingent contract which required issuance of a licence; because the licence was not issued the contract could not be enforced and there was no repudiation by the second defendant. However the second defendant made negligent misrepresentations by issuing approval without verifying the highland freeze boundary, thereby inducing the plaintiff to incur preparatory expenses; defendants are liable for those losses and for general damages for inconvenience; first defendant vicariously liable for the agency's conduct.
16 Dec 2024

BETANAZ PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEON CO. (M) BHD PIHAK KETIGA Ahmad Zaki Resources Berhad PIHAK TERKILAN MUFG BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-121-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-121-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence and commercial construction of the agreements the court found AEON in breach and not entitled to treat the TA and CA as void for non-fulfilment of CPs; AZRB completed the bridge section required to serve the mall (CPC 25.09.2020) within government EOT; Betanaz validly terminated the tenancy and is entitled to recover wasted expenditure as alternative relief. AEON's counterclaim and challenge to the bank guarantee fail. Accordingly judgment for Betanaz on alternative wasted expenditure (RM18,678,255.27) entered; AEON to pay specified costs; counterclaim and BG suit dismissed.
16 Dec 2024

BETANAZ PROPERTIES SDN BHD AEON CO. (M) BHD PIHAK KETIGA Ahmad Zaki Resources Berhad PIHAK TERKILAN MUFG BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-121-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-121-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence Betanaz and AZRB fulfilled their respective obligations: AZRB achieved practical completion of the bridge section and government CPC was issued within the EOT and Betanaz delivered vacant possession; AEON failed to secure its CPs and elected not to perform, thereby repudiating the TA; the unsigned lease annexure lacked execution and binding effect; Betanaz’s alternative claim for wasted expenditure was justified and proven; AEON’s counterclaim and bank guarantee action were without merit and dismissed.