Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement agreement

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

SANDPIT N QUARRY SDN BHD MATHURA A/P GANESON

Citation

BA-16-74-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-74-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the DGIR settlement was limited to the reinstatement claim and was not a full and final settlement of the respondent's statutory claims; accordingly the Director General of Manpower had jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's separate statutory claim and was correct to award 9 days annual leave and 98 days maternity leave and the sum of RM15,268.69; the appeal was dismissed.
9 Mar 2026

Pestech Sdn Bhd CEEC TIANJIN ELECTRIC POWER (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC-17-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-17-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The settlement agreements (Settlement Agreement No.1 and Settlement Agreement No.2) were valid and not credibly challenged, rendering the Debt undisputable on substantial grounds; accordingly a winding-up petition based on the statutory demand has a real prospect of success and the Plaintiff failed to establish grounds for a Fortuna injunction, so the originating summons must be dismissed.
26 Feb 2026

KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) WSJ INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) NOR RAIHAN BINTI AHMAD KAMARUDIN 3. ) IQBAL BIN MOHD AYUB 4. ) MOHAMED BASIR BIN MAIDIN 5. ) RASHID BIN MAIDIN 6. ) MOHAMED IDRIS BIN MOHAMED 7. ) MOHAMED IZHAR BI

Citation

WA-22M-233-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-233-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the letters of demand were duly served by posting and AR registered post; the guarantors were not released by the Settlement Letters because they were not parties and the condition precedent of full payment was not satisfied; KFH was entitled to proceed against the guarantors without realising other securities; the compensation fees claimed are ta'widh and not riba; the Certificate of Indebtedness and account statements constituted prima facie proof of the debt absent manifest error; equity did not bar enforcement. Accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff against…
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.
28 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD THB POWER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudication decision created an enforceable entitlement and the respondent failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or to show immediate means of payment; without prejudice communications relied upon in the parties' affidavits were properly before the court or waived; therefore enforcement by winding up was appropriate and the winding-up petition is allowed, while the competing motion to appoint private liquidators is dismissed on the facts.
27 Jan 2026

SAMSUNG C&T (KL) SDN. BHD. M & M CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-28PW-758-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-758-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave under s.471(1) was refused because the Applicant's straightforward contractual claim is appropriately and adequately dealt with through the Official Receiver's proof of debt process, the Official Receiver agreed to that procedure, and granting leave would risk depleting the company's assets through litigation costs; the Applicant did not demonstrate necessity for leave or that the claim could not be resolved in winding up.
7 Nov 2025

WAI CHOO 1. ) PLATINUM INTEGRATED CITY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE THAI YOUNG MATAHARI 3. ) BINTANG LEE THAI HSIN

Citation

WA-22NCC-251-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-251-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to raise any triable issue: allegations of illegality lacked particulars and relevance; the exhibited Settlement Agreements did not pertain to the Agreements in suit; alleged breach of the negative pledge and claimed penalty were unparticularized and unsupported; no counterclaim was pleaded. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and the Plaintiff's claim was allowed against the 1st Defendant and against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on their joint and several guarantee.
30 Oct 2025

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD YU KUAN CHON

Citation

WA-22NCC-446-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-446-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Defendant’s guarantees were valid and enforceable: the Defendant had admitted the debt and entered a settlement, the recitals established consideration, the supplemental option agreements did not discharge the guarantees on the facts, and no bona fide triable issue or other reason for trial under Order 14 r.3(1) was shown; summary judgment was therefore granted for the Plaintiff.
17 Sept 2025

BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT (M) BERHAD TOP TRIDENT TRADERS SDN. BHD. PENCELAH TENGKU NGAH PUTRA BIN TENGKU AHMAD TAJUDDIN

Citation

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court granted a temporary stay of the Originating Summons because the central dispute in the enforcement action (whether any debt exists and the validity of the underlying judgment and settlement) is likely to be determinative and is being litigated in pending related suits; proceeding would risk irretrievable prejudice to the defendant and inconsistent findings, while the plaintiff's interests are protected by the caveat and potential damages, therefore a stay is necessary for fairness and judicial economy; conversion to a writ and consolidation were refused because the Originating Summo…
10 Sept 2025

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Christopher Martin Boyd PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Deb Brata Das Gupta

Citation

WA-29NCC-1076-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-1076-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Settlement did not extinguish the Judgment because clause 5 contained a default provision that revives the Judgment on default, therefore the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition predicated on the Judgment were valid; further the affidavit verifying the petition affirmed one day prior to filing did not cause prejudice and section 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967 preserves the petition; accordingly the debtor's appeals fail.