Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 66 contracts act 1950

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

GLOBAL FIBER TRENCHERS SDN. BHD. EMNES METAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52C-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52C-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Counterclaim was struck out as obviously unsustainable: s.66 Contracts Act 1950 permits restitution to prevent unjust enrichment where plaintiff performed works and incurred costs despite lack of statutory permit; defendant authorised continuation of works and accepted payment and therefore is estopped from seeking refund; lack of approval by third party Reneuco does not give defendant a cause of action due to absence of privity.
21 Jul 2025

GOLDEN WHEEL CREDIT SDN BHD DATO' SIAH TEONG DIN

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-757-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-757-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the moneylending agreements were void and unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951 but not illegal under the Act or s.24 Contracts Act 1950; applying the Detik Ria guidelines the centrality of any illegality was low and proportionality favoured restitution because a licensed lender lent on the respondent's instructions, the interest rate was not extortionate, the loans were performed (disbursed) and denial of s.66 relief would be disproportionate; therefore s.66 CA 1950 entitles the appellant to restitution of RM3,383,500 plus 5% interest and costs.
15 Apr 2025

KABAZ SDN. BHD. SARAWAK CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES BERHAD

Citation

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-44-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Respondent, as a third party, lacked locus standi to rely on the Deed of Assignment to challenge the Appellant's capacity; the Offer to Purchase was not void as Respondent had performed by paying the deposit and then failed to complete the sale within the contractual period; the Sessions Court erred in applying Section 66 to order refund of the deposit; consequently the Sessions Court's order allowing the counterclaim was set aside and costs awarded to the Appellant.
28 Feb 2025

1. ) LEE CHIA MUN 2. ) TEY GIAP HAN 1. ) LUI JUN 2. ) CHUA THIAM MANN 3. ) LEE CHIN SIANG 4. ) WAN KIM YUAN 5. ) INSGURT INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 6. ) YOUGURT SRI PETALING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-8638-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-8638-11/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found an agreement to purchase shares existed only between the Plaintiff (Lee Chia Mun) and the First Defendant (Lui Jun), but that agreement was void and unenforceable due to illegality (First Defendant had no legal title or authority to sell the shares and statutory transfer formalities were absent) and due to fraudulent conduct by the First Defendant; restitution under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 and unjust enrichment remedies are available against the First Defendant; claims against Defendants 2-6 for conspiracy and related reliefs fail f…
12 Aug 2024

Ooi Chong Seong 1. ) Lim Kean Tin 2. ) MBI INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 3. ) KOLEJ UNIVERSITI LINTON SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-104-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Sale and Purchase Agreement was void for illegality under section 24 Contracts Act 1950 and the 1st Defendant did not plead restitution in unjust enrichment or money had and received, the court could not and would not order a post‑judgment assessment or require return of monies; s.66 restitution does not assist where contract is void ab initio or claimant has unclean hands (per Federal Court authority).
30 Jan 2024

Koperasi Perumahan Kluang Berhad 1. ) Tan Fun Theng 2. ) Tan Hee Fun 3. ) Pentadbir dan/atau Wasi Tan Wang Kiang

Citation

JB-22NCvC-58-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-58-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that RM505,000 originated from it as brokerage commission or that the Defendants were liable; Section 66 could not be invoked against non-parties; Plaintiff failed to plead or prove a constructive trust and failed to satisfy s71 unjust enrichment requirements; evidence established Tan Glass Trading's account was a conduit pipe disbursing commissions to brokers; claim dismissed with costs.
24 Jan 2024

MANJIT SINGH A/L DELBARA SINGH SANGEETHA A/P PERUMAL

Citation

BA-A52NCC-414-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-A52NCC-414-09/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Amendment allowed because it was filed bona fide after solicitor change and within a reasonable time before trial, the proposed amendments arise from the same facts and do not change the character of the suit, the procedural defect in citing the wrong rule was not fatal, and any prejudice to defendant can be compensated by costs.
25 Jun 2021

GOLDEN WHEEL CREDIT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 27247-H) DATO' SIAH TEONG DIN (NRIC NO.: 620926106325)

Citation

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the plaintiff's action. Where moneylending agreements are void ab initio by reason of statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951, section 66 Contracts Act 1950 does not afford restitution to the moneylender and the court will refuse restitution if allowing it would stultify the statutory policy; the Patel v Mirza discretionary test for common law illegality does not apply to statutory illegality in this context.