Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Specific performance

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

PRESGO GATEWAYS SDN BHD Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru

Citation

JA-22NCC-25-04/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-25-04/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ex parte interim injunction was set aside because the Defendant promptly raised a substantial, unresolved jurisdictional challenge—principally whether s29 GPA applies to a local authority in these circumstances and whether the dispute is contractual or public in nature—questions central to the Court's power to grant injunctive relief which cannot be conclusively resolved on the ex parte record; accordingly the proper course is to vacate the ex parte order and allow full inter partes ventilation.
22 Apr 2026

PUNCAK GALI HARMONI SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24NCC(ARB)-7-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried but failed on discretionary grounds: damages are essentially adequate for the commercial losses alleged, the injunction sought was broad and would impose substantial operational restraints on a public railway rehabilitation project, the balance of convenience favoured refusal, public interest reinforced that conclusion, and no narrower neutral order could be fashioned; therefore the interim injunction (Enclosure 3) is dismissed.
16 Apr 2026

PRIMUS EQUITIES & ASSETS SDN. BHD. 1. ) LANGKASUKA LAND SDN. BHD. 2. ) WIDAD BUSINESS GROUP SDN. BHD. 3. ) TAN SRI MUHAMMAD IKMAL OPAT BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) ILHAM WIDAD BIN MUHAMMAD IKMAL OPAT 5. ) JAMILAH BINTI MAHAMAD ISA 6. ) Pentadbir Tanah

Citation

WA-22NCC-341-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-341-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiff has a good arguable case and established sufficient risk of dissipation as to maintain the Mareva injunction against D1 and D3 within specified monetary limits, but the injunction must be varied to preserve the indefeasible proprietary and statutory foreclosure rights of interveners (PERKESO and OCBC) because their charges predate the Plaintiff's caveats and are not alleged to be fraudulent.
16 Apr 2026

PRIMUS EQUITIES & ASSETS SDN. BHD. 1. ) LANGKASUKA LAND SDN. BHD. 2. ) WIDAD BUSINESS GROUP SDN. BHD. 3. ) TAN SRI MUHAMMAD IKMAL OPAT BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) ILHAM WIDAD BIN MUHAMMAD IKMAL OPAT 5. ) JAMILAH BINTI MAHAMAD ISA 6. ) Pentadbir Tanah

Citation

WA-22NCC-341-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-341-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff has a good arguable case and there is a real risk of dissipation based on the admitted conduct of D1 and D3 and the circumstantial evidence of dishonest conduct; assets were disclosed within jurisdiction; however registered chargees (PERKESO and OCBC) hold prior proprietary/statutory rights which must not be prejudiced, therefore the Mareva injunction is continued only as against D1 and D3 and varied to preserve the chargees’ foreclosure rights while discharged as against D4 and D5.
6 Apr 2026

1. ) Kang Keang Huang 2. ) Chan Chin Yeow Cityvilla Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPAs are valid and binding because DDSB acted within the express authority conferred by the JVA and PA to sell Block A units, Cityvilla contracted and undertook to be bound by such acts (JVA Clauses 9.1 and 11.2), the indoor management rule protects the Plaintiffs as innocent third parties, the purchase prices were discharged by accord and satisfaction evidenced by contemporaneous Letters of Discount and Confirmation, and Cityvilla ratified the transactions by acquiescence; accordingly specific performance and LAD are ordered.
1 Apr 2026

New Station 99 Sdn Bhd 1. ) Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad 2. ) Cosmic Master Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-22NCC-44-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-44-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D2 was lawfully appointed agent under a valid PA and acted within the authority conferred; D1 is therefore bound by D2's acts, including receipt of RM4,000,000, issuance of the Surat Akujanji and execution of the SPAs; payment of the full purchase price vested beneficial ownership in the Plaintiff making D1 the bare trustee; Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and late delivery interest at 10% p.a. from 17 July 2015 until delivery.
11 Mar 2026

1. ) V CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' HOO VOON HIM 1. ) IMPIANA SDN BHD 2. ) DATO' SERI ISMAIL @ FAROUK BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-22NCC-689-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-689-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Suit 689 was struck out because it sought to nullify the same SSA that a competent court (YA Justice Leong in Suit 354) had ordered to be specifically performed, and independently because the claim was frivolous and vexatious, barred by the extended res judicata principle (claims could and should have been advanced as a counterclaim in Suit 354), and constituted an abuse of process given the plaintiffs' tactical litigation conduct; those four independent grounds justified striking out and awarding indemnity costs.
11 Mar 2026

MOK CHIA WU 1. ) CHUA CHEE WEAE 2. ) CHUA CHEE LIANG

Citation

JA-22NCvC-141-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-141-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment was refused because it would introduce a new cause of action (tortious misrepresentation) fundamentally changing the character of the original contractual claim for specific performance; it was made as a tactical response after the defence was disclosed and would cause serious prejudice to defendants not reparable by costs, therefore the application fell outside the permissible scope of Order 20 Rule 5 and must be dismissed.
11 Mar 2026

CHUAN FATT HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD GOOD POINT PROPERTY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-563-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-563-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found bona fide serious issues to be tried on whether Defendant breached the right of first refusal by failing to disclose and offer on the third‑party terms, damages are inadequate for land and the balance of convenience favors the Plaintiff, therefore an interim injunction restraining transfer was warranted.
4 Mar 2026

1. ) DHRSHNI DEVI A/P RAHMIS 2. ) RAHMIS A/L SUPPIAH 1. ) SEKHARAN A/L ASSARIAH 2. ) KOMALA DEVI A/P KONDIAH

Citation

JA-22NCvC-53-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-53-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue of material fact; the contested points were either undisputed facts or issues of contract interpretation resolvable on the documents; plaintiffs were ready and willing and had not materially breached the SPA; therefore specific performance and a permanent injunction were properly granted and defendants ordered to execute transfer documents and refrain from dealing with the property.