Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of contract

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

ASMAH BINTI MAHFUL 1. ) HASSAN BIN YUSOF 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

Citation

BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 1st Defendant knowingly signed the transfer documents; he failed to prove non est factum, fraud or forgery; the Plaintiff proved payment of the deposit pursuant to a mutually agreed variation; the Defendant did not terminate the SPA and thus had implicitly elected to affirm it; consequently the SPA remained valid and specifically enforceable, and the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance with costs of RM10,000.
22 Aug 2025

YENG YING SDN. BHD. LLC INFRA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-32-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-32-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiff did not establish a mutual agreement to hand over incomplete works (only Location 13 properly handed over); Plaintiff failed to prove any valid contractual variation permitting partial completion; Plaintiff breached the LOA by failing to complete works and not applying for EOT; Defendant was entitled to complete works and to set-off/back charges supported by documentary evidence and to recover contractually stipulated LADs. Consequently Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and Defendant's counterclaims and set-offs are allowed in the specified sums, wit…
23 Jul 2025

1. ) VITAL LIVING EMPIRE SDN BHD 2. ) SASHITHERAN A/L KANAGASABAPATHI 3. ) VIGNESWARAN A/L AH WALI ELEGANT GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court was plainly wrong to order summary judgment because the Plaintiffs had pleaded fraud/misrepresentation and contested formation of a Second Contract (LGI) which raised genuine triable issues that could not be resolved summarily, and therefore the counterclaim required full trial; failure to file an opposing affidavit did not negate the sufficiency of the pleadings to raise triable issues.
15 Jul 2025

MODULAR QUEST SDN BHD 1. ) HARIKRISHNAN A/L KANAPATHY / K.HARIKRISHNAN 2. ) MAJU CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12B-112-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-112-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the written Stakeholders Agreement governed the RM150,000; the appellants failed to prove any valid oral variation (no consideration and insufficient evidence), the stakeholder improperly released funds in breach of the written agreement, and Maju is liable to indemnify the stakeholder; accordingly the Sessions Court judgments were set aside and the appeals allowed in the terms ordered.
26 Jun 2025

1. ) D SMILE ACADEMY 2. ) MOHD SULAIMAN BIN NUBA 3. ) JAGDISHPAL SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH 4. ) GIGITAL DENTAL GROUP SDN. BHD 5. ) HARVIR SINGH SIDHU 6. ) MUHAMMAD FATHULLAH BIN MOHD YUSSOF 7. ) NORAINI BINTI AHMAD NAWAWI 1. ) GRABFLEET MANAG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-211-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-211-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 procedural and evidentiary requirements by proving the written Vendor Agreements, default and unpaid sums; defendants admitted liability but failed to adduce documentary evidence of any agreed variation or payment, and therefore failed to show a bona fide triable issue; summary judgment was appropriate and granted with costs RM10,000.
16 Apr 2025

SARALEANA NATTAYA BINTI AZMI TECHNA-X BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-22-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's own authenticated acknowledgements and confirmation receipt stating receipt of RM6,000,000 and RM2,452,000 respectively, and expressly declaring the purchase consideration fully and finally settled, established payment; the plaintiff failed to adduce positive evidence (e.g. expert document examiner report or prompt police report) to rebut or prove forgery, thus her claim for RM10,452,000 failed and was dismissed.
19 Nov 2024

AMBANK(M) BERHAD 1. ) PRECIOUS CONCRETE SDN BHD 2. ) C&L MINERALS SDN BHD 3. ) LAW THIEN LOY 4. ) CHUAH CHONG EE 5. ) CHOO KHEN LON

Citation

WA-22NCC-301-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-301-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or manifest error in the Certificate of Indebtedness; the guarantees are continuing and enforceable despite resignation or rescheduling; therefore summary judgment is appropriate and the 2nd–5th Defendants are liable for the sums claimed; the claim against the 1st Defendant is struck out due to winding up with liberty to file afresh.
2 Sept 2024

KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD PORT KELANG AUTHORITY

Citation

02(f)-7-04/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-7-04/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

ADW2 was void for want of consideration under section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950; no admissible extrinsic evidence established consideration for ADW2, the agreements were separate and not to be read as one composite contract, and equitable estoppel cannot validate a contract lacking the statutory requirement of consideration; appeal dismissed and Court of Appeal decision affirmed.
2 Sept 2024

KUALA DIMENSI SDN BHD PORT KELANG AUTHORITY

Citation

02(f)-7-04/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-7-04/2024(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

ADW 2 constituted a new agreement altering ADW 1 but contained no fresh consideration moving from KDSB to PKA; ADW 1, ADW 2 and NADW are separate contracts and must be construed separately; because ADW 2 lacked consideration it is void under the Contracts Act 1950 and estoppel cannot validate it, therefore the Court of Appeal's declaration of nullity was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Aug 2024

Mohd Khalid Bin Mohd Noor UEM Land Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCvC-776-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-776-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Termination Agreement was defective due to material omission of reasons and the Plaintiff did not validly consent; clause 15 could not be read independently of clause 6 and could not justify unilateral termination absent proven default; the MACC investigation did not establish Plaintiff's complicity; therefore Defendant unjustifiably terminated the Agreement, breached the contract, and Plaintiff is entitled to rescind and compensation of RM1,134,960.75 with interest and costs.