Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tenancy termination

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

Rightbase Trading Sdn. Bhd Premium Park Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-373-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-373-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the Tenancy Agreement had terminated upon commencement of compulsory acquisition and the plaintiff had no cause of action for rent; proprietorship of the acquired land remains with the former owner until Form K is memorialised on the title pursuant to ss 23 and 66 LAA 1960; a subsisting consent order permitting access prevailed in the interim and therefore the defendant’s access did not constitute trespass over the Access Road or Unidentifiable Land; accordingly Appeal 313 dismissed and Appeal 373 allowed by setting aside the High Court’s grant of trespass against the defe…
15 Oct 2025

TENGKU MUSTAFFA KAMEL IBNI SULTAN MAHMUD KO AESTHETIC & LASER CENTRE SDN BHD

Citation

TA-A54-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A54-10-04/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff, having terminated the tenancy early, was contractually liable to pay compensation and return deposits under the tenancy agreement; defendant had vacated and was entitled to payment of RM24,000 (compensation), return of RM16,000 deposit and proportionate February 2025 rent RM1,571.40, totaling RM41,571.40. The court rejected plaintiff's condition that payment be subject to inspection or that payment be routed into plaintiff's solicitors' client account when plaintiff refused that mechanism; therefore payment was ordered to be made directly to defendant within two days with notificat…
12 Sept 2022

Arrow Express (M) Sdn Bhd Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam

Citation

BA-22NCVC-178-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-178-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the 1st Tenancy was validly terminated under express clause allowing 30 days landlord termination; the 2nd Tenancy was wrongfully terminated because no contractual right to early termination by landlord and Defendant failed to prove default or insolvency; Plaintiff is estopped under s116 from denying Defendant's capacity to let so misrepresentation/refund claims fail; damages recoverable are limited to losses caused by wrongful termination under s74 and were assessed at RM48,000 plus interest and costs RM20,000.
31 Mar 2022

1. ) MAHATHIR MOHAMMAD BIN MOHD ALI JINNAH 2. ) SAJITHA BEGAM BINTI MOHD ALI JINNAH 3. ) HULDHANA BEGUM BINTI MOHD ALI JINNAH JAGDISH SINGH A/L AMIR SINGH

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-196-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-196-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Current Suit raised issues identical or effectively the same as those litigated or which could and should have been litigated in the earlier Sessions Court suit (215); therefore the Current Suit is barred by res judicata in its narrow or wider sense as an abuse of process and the Sessions Court correctly struck it out; withdrawal of a counterclaim with liberty to file afresh did not immunize the new suit from a res judicata/abuse of process challenge.

Malaysia Case Law

Rightbase Trading Sdn. Bhd Premium Park Development Sdn Bhd

TENGKU MUSTAFFA KAMEL IBNI SULTAN MAHMUD KO AESTHETIC & LASER CENTRE SDN BHD

Arrow Express (M) Sdn Bhd Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam

1. ) MAHATHIR MOHAMMAD BIN MOHD ALI JINNAH 2. ) SAJITHA BEGAM BINTI MOHD ALI JINNAH 3. ) HULDHANA BEGUM BINTI MOHD ALI JINNAH JAGDISH SINGH A/L AMIR SINGH