Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set‑off

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 1. ) NG KENG KHOON 2. ) TANG LEE WEN

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court: appellant failed to demonstrate bona fide triable issues supported by precise, material evidence; the SPA plainly fixed the contract price (RM648,000) and LAD formula; plaintiffs' LAD calculation, with statutory exclusion of 167 days under s 35 Akta 829, produced an ascertainable sum RM269,674.52; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was proper and is upheld.
25 Feb 2026

MLABS SYSTEMS BERHAD LONGHOUSE FILMS SDN BHD (DALAM PENYELESAIAN)

Citation

BA-24NCC-129-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-129-11/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there existed a clear, genuine and substantial dispute as to the legal character of the RM500,000.00 payment supported by contemporaneous documents and competing evidence, and because the dispute required contractual interpretation and factual findings unsuitable for insolvency proceedings, the Plaintiff crossed the Fortuna threshold and injunction was granted to restrain presentation and advertisement of the winding up petition based on the statutory notice dated 23.10.2025.
6 Feb 2026

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD 1. ) DICKSON WOO BOON SIEW 2. ) CHOONG SOO HOI 3. ) LEE SWEE KIAT 4. ) LEE MEI PENG 5. ) CHU SWEE WAH 6. ) TIONG POH LING 7. ) PRISTINE CLEAR SDN BHD 8. ) CSL PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-890-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal in part: the settlement letters were valid and not vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation; LAD entitlement is to be determined strictly by the express SPA terms and the parties' agreed settlement (but miscellaneous charges agreed in the settlement must be deducted from LAD); the High Court order directing repayment of RM25,394 was set aside because the 6th respondent bore the burden to prove the payment and failed to call material witnesses; accordingly the High Court judgment was varied with revised LAD amounts and costs awarded to the Appellant.
16 Jan 2026

1. ) FADZILAN BIN MOHD DAUD 2. ) NOR AZIZAN BINTI AZMAN 3. ) AZRIN BIN MOHAMAD ZAWAWI 4. ) LATUN NORALYANI BINTI MEOR AMINUDIN 5. ) SHAHARIN BIN JUSOH 6. ) OMAR BIN ABDULLAH 7. ) HAZLENA BINTI M RAZALI 8. ) NOOR ROSNI BINTI SAIDIN 9. ) SALE

Citation

WA-28PW-397-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-397-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants are beneficial owners entitled to transfer of properties but transfer is ordered conditionally: applicants must refund the 1st instalment (which is refundable and not a forfeitable deposit) and that refund shall be set off against the LAD awarded in Suit 556; the court may order restitution/set‑off under its inherent jurisdiction and without a counterclaim; claims for damages for breach of the Consent Orders are not to be dealt with without specific leave.
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…
26 Nov 2025

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 1. ) TRANSKON SDN. BHD. 2. ) YEE KIM MUN

Citation

WA-22M-1024-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-1024-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the application to set aside the JIDA was inordinate and unexplainedly delayed (no extension sought), the JIDA was regularly obtained and validly served per contractual mode, and the Defendants failed to establish a bona fide triable defence: alleged Shariah non-compliance does not void the contracts by operation of s281 IFSA 2013, the Certificate of Indebtedness is conclusive absent manifest error which was not demonstrated, and the contractual right of set-off was properly exercised; accordingly the JIDA stands.
20 Nov 2025

SENG YOON SENG HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. JEKS ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-97-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-97-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities Plaintiff completed the works and is entitled to RM226,233.74; Plaintiff failed to prove any written application for extension of time as required by the Letter of Award, therefore time remained of the essence and Plaintiff is liable for LAD calculated at RM9,000 per day for 295 days (total RM2,655,000.00); exclusion of LAD from final statement of account did not constitute a waiver or estoppel absent clear intention and reliance; Defendant entitled to proven back charges of RM30,859.86; Plaintiff's claim for solicitor's fees disallowed; interest awarded at 5%…
19 Nov 2025

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD NADAYU PROPERTIES BERHAD

Citation

BA-22C-25-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-25-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found no triable issues: the Plaintiff admitted receipt of the RM6,000,000 advance and the contract terms obligated repayment; the Plaintiff's set‑off case lacked sufficient legal basis to defeat summary judgment; the Defendant rebutted the presumption of being an unlicensed moneylender by evidencing a non‑moneylending relationship, absence of system/continuity of lending, no advertising as a moneylender and non‑exorbitant profit; accordingly summary judgment on the Defendant's Counterclaim was allowed with costs but execution was stayed pending disposal of the Plaintiff's substanti…
17 Nov 2025

OIL PARTNERS LLC SIME DARBY OILS PASIR GUDANG REFINERY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-153-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-153-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contemporaneous ISO‑accredited CoAs dated on same day as packing showing FFA below 0.1% were reliable; Plaintiff failed to discharge onus to prove inherent defects at packing; competing expert evidence preferred Defendant’s explanation that hydrolytic degradation (moisture ingress and temperature fluctuation) post-shipment caused FFA increases; under FOB Pasir Gudang risk of post-shipment deterioration passed to Plaintiff; no binding variation of payment terms for CBS contracts was concluded (17.5.2022 correspondence was a proposal subject to confirmation and internal approval and was validly…
22 Oct 2025

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-359-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-359-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff had effectively satisfied the purchase price by way of set-off against the Defendant's debt as recorded in the SPAs, thereby acquiring a beneficial interest in the properties; accordingly the Defendant was ordered to perform and deliver vacant possession by specific performance of the 3 SPAs.