Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sub-tenancy

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

1. ) YEW SZE SZE 2. ) YEAK MEE LENG Chu Pang Kiong

Citation

AA-12A-27-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12A-27-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred by permitting third-party proceedings against the appellants because the unauthorised electricity diversion was a tort committed and admitted by the sub-tenant Sik, not a breach by the appellants; the appellants lawfully sublet and had no knowledge or involvement, the contractual clauses relied upon do not apply to impose indemnity in these facts, contribution is unavailable absent joint tortfeasorship, and the third-party notice was obtained on a misleading factual premise — therefore the third-party proceedings are set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs.
4 Oct 2024

MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD SSB CAPITAL SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-504-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-504-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant, as a sub‑tenant without privity with the plaintiff or owner, had no enforceable interest once summary judgment for possession was entered against the defendant; consequently the applicant's occupancy was extinguished and amounted to trespass, and there were no special circumstances sufficient to justify a stay of execution; therefore the stay application was dismissed.
7 Dec 2023

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN. BHD. 1. ) SSB CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-437-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-437-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the plaintiff, as a sub-tenant, had no continuing locus to occupy after the master tenancy expired and the consent order; the plaintiff had notice/acknowledged the consent order and failed to intervene earlier; the second defendant retained contractual rights via a Letter of Confirmation and month-to-month tenancy with EPF; balance of convenience favoured the second defendant and damages were an adequate remedy, so injunction was refused.
11 Sept 2023

1. ) ONG YEONG 2. ) LIM WEI CHET MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

Citation

AA-12ANCvC-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-12ANCvC-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs had knowledge of and accepted rental payments from sub-tenants after termination of the principal tenancy and remained silent; such conduct constituted or confirmed a landlord-tenant relationship and estopped plaintiffs from claiming tenant holding over, double rent or mesne profits; the amendment application was tactical and in bad faith and would not alter the character of the cause; accordingly the preliminary determination under O.14A r.1 and/or O.33 r.2 was correctly allowed and the amendment application correctly dismissed, so both appeals fail.
1 Sept 2021

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 3rd and 4th defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action because they were not parties to the sub‑tenancy (no privity) and the plaintiff failed to plead specific particulars of fraud; issues as to validity of tenancy and probate are subject of ongoing Suit 236 and cannot be resolved in this summary process; therefore the claim against these defendants is obviously unsustainable and was struck out.
1 Sept 2021

CHENG KAR TONG 1. ) YVONNE GOH SEEN YEE 2. ) POH KOON CHYE 3. ) LIM PAU LIN 4. ) LIM HWONG JIT 5. ) LIM SIOW JIT 6. ) TAN SUI LIN NICHOLIN IMELDA 7. ) YEOH TAI CHUAN 8. ) T.C. YEOH & CO.

Citation

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 3rd and 4th defendants was struck out because there was no privity of contract or pleaded particulars establishing a cause of action against them, the plaintiff failed to plead fraud with required particularity, and the disputed proprietary and probate matters relevant to the validity of the tenancy are the proper subject of the ongoing Suit 236; accordingly the claim was obviously unsustainable as pleaded.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) YEW SZE SZE 2. ) YEAK MEE LENG Chu Pang Kiong

MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD SSB CAPITAL SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd.

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN. BHD. 1. ) SSB CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) MALAYSIA AIRLINES BERHAD

1. ) ONG YEONG 2. ) LIM WEI CHET MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD

PA-22NCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CHENG KAR TONG 1. ) YVONNE GOH SEEN YEE 2. ) POH KOON CHYE 3. ) LIM PAU LIN 4. ) LIM HWONG JIT 5. ) LIM SIOW JIT 6. ) TAN SUI LIN NICHOLIN IMELDA 7. ) YEOH TAI CHUAN 8. ) T.C. YEOH & CO.