Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 75 contracts act 1950

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2026

CENTRAL SUGARS REFINERY SDN BHD HOLSTEN MARKETING (M) SDN BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-155-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contract B as varied by the Addendum governed the parties' relationship; Holsten breached the Addendum by failing to deliver the contracted quantities and ceasing deliveries after 23 January 2020; the alleged non-payment of RM164,000 did not amount to a repudiatory breach and did not justify cessation; CSR validly terminated the contract and is entitled to repayment of the undelivered portion of the deposit with contractual late delivery interest and costs; Holsten cannot forfeit the deposit under section 75 as forfeiture would be disproportionate and serve as a penalty; Holsten's counterclai…
12 Mar 2025

1. ) YEW TUCK CHOON 2. ) SRI AMAN BAKTI SDN. BHD. 1. ) BITARA ANGKASA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BINA HARTA HOMES SDN. BHD. 3. ) Lee Lun Teong

Citation

WA-22NCvC-419-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-419-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no triable issue that Defendants must pay the Plaintiffs RM2,000,000 as unconditionally agreed in Clause 2.1.1 and entered summary judgment for that sum; however triable issues remain concerning the additional RM1,300,000 claimed under Clause 4.1(ii) and the quantum of items (iii) to (ix), which must proceed to trial.
4 Mar 2025

Marwiya Binti Miswan Dede Resources Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-44-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-44-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the contractual phrase 'Floral Design Training Course' objectively required a structured, identifiable training program delivered over an identifiable period by identifiable trainers; routine on-the-job instruction did not meet that standard. Consequently the respondent failed to prove provision of such a course. Alternatively, even if training had been provided, the RM60,000 stipulation constituted an extravagant and disproportionate sum relative to the respondent's legitimate interest and was therefore unenforceable as unreasonable compensation under s.75 Contracts…
28 Feb 2025

Wong Mun Seng Chen Kok Weng

Citation

BA-A74-136-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A74-136-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found Defendant breached the Share Sale Agreement by failing to remove Plaintiff as guarantor within the Period specified (which commenced from SSM approval on 21 August 2023), clause 2.2(e) required written requests for extensions which were not established, Section 75 applies and the agreed penalty is enforceable absent proof of unreasonableness, and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to RM50,000 with costs on the prescribed scale.
2 Jan 2025

WIT INK CREATIVE SDN BHD DK-MY PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCC-7-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-7-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court erred by finding waiver/estoppel when that defence was not pleaded; the Invoices formed part of the parties' contractual terms including entitlement to LPI at 3% per month; the defendant failed to discharge the onus to prove the rate was unreasonable; appeal allowed and the plaintiff's claim for LPI reinstated with costs awarded.
27 Jul 2023

1. ) ROHANIAH BINTI MOHD NOR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI MAT JAN 1. ) NAZERI BIN MOHD NASIR 2. ) MOHD HAFIZZUDIN BIN NAZERI 3. ) NABILAH BINTI NAZERI 4. ) Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah

Citation

CB-22NCvC-5-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-5-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove specific quantifiable general loss based on admissible evidence but, constrained by the Court of Appeal's order that damages be assessed, the High Court awarded a reasonable sum on the facts: RM50,000.00 as general damages and RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with costs assessed at RM5,000.00 subject to allocatur; the court declined to accept plaintiffs' large arithmetic claim based on current prices and speculative yields and found s75/penalty analysis inapplicable to produce a larger award absent proof of loss.
10 Sept 2021

Tekun Nasional Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

02(f)-90-10/2018(W) & 02(f)-92-10/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-90-10/2018(W) & 02(f)-92-10/2018(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The court affirmed liability for breach but held clause 11.2 to be a penalty under s75 and Plenitude failed to adduce evidence of actual loss or the necessary factual basis for the contractual formula; because the trial was concluded pre-Cubic and the plaintiff bore the pre-existing onus to prove quantum, a further assessment would amount to a second bite; accordingly the court substituted an order for nominal damages of RM5,000 and awarded costs of RM120,000 while affirming the separate SI award of RM612,000.
28 Jun 2021

AVIOSUPPORT CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD (CO. NO.: 560561-K) 1. ) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, MALAYSIA 2. ) GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-104-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-104-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial evidence including oral testimony of SD2 and SD3 established breaches by the appellant (failure to clock, non-attendance, uniform failures); the contract expressly permitted 20% deductions under clauses 12.1(e) and 12.2 and such deductions fall within s75 Contracts Act 1950 as explained in Cubic Electronics; the appellant failed to prove the deductions were unreasonable; documents marked ID were sufficiently authenticated by witnesses and admissible under s73A and appellate powers to treat them as exhibits; therefore the deductions were lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Sept 2020

MPM Project Management Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat 1129096-K) Kin Keong Electric Engineering Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat 464788-A)

Citation

AB - 12B NCVC - 19 - 09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 12B NCVC - 19 - 09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge's factual findings were correct and not vitiated by error: the plaintiff proved entitlement to the outstanding progressive payment and the defendant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities its counterclaims for omission, defective works and LAD; unilateral re-measurement violated contract terms and no loss was proven under s75 Contracts Act 1950, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed.
5 Aug 2020

GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED DATO’ SRI CHONG KET PEN

Citation

WA-22NCC-465-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-465-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Agreement was a legally binding contract, but clause 3.1(h) did not itself constitute a profit guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff; it was an obligation on the Defendant to provide a profit guarantee to the ultimate purchaser of the shares. No separate guarantee was given to the purchaser (Kingdom Seekers) as contemplated and the Plaintiff did not plead or prove nexus or loss arising from any breach; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for RM5,002,000 failed and was dismissed with costs.