Malaysia Case Law

22 Apr 2025

1. ) BUILTAMONT INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) WONG YEON CHAI ZAHILAH BINTI ABDUL WAHAB

Citation

WA-22NCvC-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCvC-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant admitted execution of agreements and indebtedness of RM1,000,000 and failed to show any plausible defence; the undertaking is not void for illegality because s42 permits acceptance of performance from a third party and no incapacity or illegality under s24 was established; res judicata did not bar the claim; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and strike-out was unjustified.

• Summary judgment
• Strike out
• Illegality
• Res judicata
• Undertaking
• Enforceability

28 Feb 2025

LOW CHEE GROUP SDN. BHD. 1. ) WONG KIT LEONG 2. ) MONTEIRO GERARD CLAIR 3. ) RAYMOND TAN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1405-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-24NCvC-1405-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The LOU, being an express irrevocable and unconditional undertaking signed by the defendants in their personal capacities, created a valid and binding contractual obligation to procure redemption and discharge of the property; defendants breached those obligations and are estopped from denying personal liability, entitling the plaintiff to mandatory relief, costs and assessment of damages.

• Undertaking
• Specific performance
• Consideration
• Privity of contract
• Loan security
• Penal notice

12 Aug 2024

Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn. Bhd. TAN SEW CHENG

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-369-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCvC

Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-369-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held the two undertakings must be read conjunctively with the loan agreement; the plaintiff failed to discharge its unshiftable legal burden to prove the loan agreement and undertakings were valid and legally enforceable and failed to rebut apparent illegality and regulatory contraventions; respondent had also discharged evidential burden through cross-examination; restitution exception under Patel v Mirza does not apply because granting relief would be contrary to public policy and disproportionate; appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.

• Loan agreement
• Undertaking
• Illegality (ex turpi causa non oritur actio)
• Restitution (patel v mirza)
• Burden of proof (legal vs evidential)
• No case to answer

27 Jan 2023

Gavin Edward O'Luanaigh Serina Binti Redzuawan

Citation

BA-23NCvC-10-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-23NCvC-10-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found breach of the undertaking as recorded in the transcript and therefore granted injunctive relief, removal orders and costs, but refused to award general, aggravated or exemplary damages because the substantive defamation claims and quantum are reserved for determination in the ongoing full trial in Suit 16 before YA Tuan Tee and because no formal court order was filed to convert the undertaking into an enforceable order for the purposes of awarding those categories of damages in this suit.

• Damages
• Aggravated damages
• Exemplary damages
• Undertaking
• Breach of undertaking
• Injunctions

20 Aug 2021

WONG WENG KUNG (NRIC NO: 720909-08-5057) 1. ) SYARAZANA ADILA BT HJ ABDULLAH 2. ) TETUAN GULAM, MAEZAH & ADILA

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-80-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-12ANCvC-80-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the Sessions Court erred in striking out the suit because the pleadings and documentary evidence (notably the letter dated 2-11-2017) disclosed a reasonable cause of action and raised factual issues—specifically whether the defendants, as stakeholders under the undertaking, breached their duties by releasing the deposit—which must be tried; therefore Order 18 rule 19 was improperly applied.

• Striking out under order 18 rule 19
• Stakeholder duties
• Undertaking
• Breach of trust
• Pleadings and reasonable cause of action

RHB BANK BHD V AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD & ORS

Citation

RHB BANK BHD V AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD & ORS

Court

Malaysian court

The plaintiff's undertaking, read with the purchasers' irrevocable authority in s.5.02 of the LADA, created a binding obligation on the bank to release the balance of the loan to the first defendant; the purchasers could not prevent the release by their purported termination of the SPA, and the bank was ordered to release RM76,965 to the first defendant.

• Interpleader
• Undertaking
• Irrevocable authority
• Deed of assignment
• Housing loan
• Construction of undertaking

N & N CONSULTANTS SDN BHD V. MBF PROPERTY SERVICES SDN BHD & ANOR

Citation

N & N CONSULTANTS SDN BHD V. MBF PROPERTY SERVICES SDN BHD & ANOR

Court

Malaysian court

The loan approval and loan agreement expressly required interest to be paid monthly from disbursement until issuance of the certificate of fitness; therefore the plaintiff was liable for interest before issuance. The undertaking signed by the first defendant was signed as attorney for the developer/owner and was not a personal undertaking enforceable against the attorney. 'Certificate of fitness' as used in the loan documents did not include a temporary certificate under the relevant building statutes/by-laws; consequently principal paid prematurely must be refunded but interest paid is not r…

• Certificate of fitness
• Loan agreement
• Interest
• Declaration
• Undertaking
• Agency liability