Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vicarious liability

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

DYNAMIC ENVIRON SDN. BHD. 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim Malaysia (APMM)

Citation

JA-25-34-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-34-12/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the application is not frivolous or vexatious and raises several serious, arguable and triable issues—principally functus officio following payment of the fine, absence of any new factual basis justifying a second detention, potential double jeopardy under Article 7(2), possible mala fide and procedural impropriety in non-service of the Conditional Release Letter—and investigative immunity is not absolute where mala fide or abuse of power is alleged; these issues must be determined at a substantive hearing.
26 Feb 2026

1. ) KARTINI FARAH BINTI ABD RAHIM 2. ) MUKUNNAN A/L SUGUMARAN 3. ) HONG HAI SAN 4. ) SHASHI KUMAR A/L SHANMUGAM 1. ) Majlis Daerah Besut 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu

Citation

TA-24NCvC-233-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

TA-24NCvC-233-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs lacked locus standi under the 'adversely affected' test; civil courts cannot grant declarations that effectively determine criminal liability under penal provisions (Prayers I and II struck out); section 30(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 operates as an exception to subsection (1) permitting killing by firearms for the enumerated purposes including population control; the by-laws (s9(1)&(2)) were validly enacted under the Local Government Act 1976 and are not ultra vires the AWA 2015 when read harmoniously; the State Government is not liable for declaratory reliefs against the lo…
30 Jan 2026

1. ) AHMAD FAIZAL BIN MOHAMAD ALI 2. ) NORMALA BINTI HAJI BASIRON 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia JAY SHREE L. C. DOSHI (secara sendiri dan sebagai Wasi dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan)

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(W)-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(W)-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

First Appellant was negligent for failing to obtain proper informed consent, executing RFA below standard (causing full-thickness burn) and providing inadequate aftercare; Second Appellant was not negligent; Third Appellant vicariously liable. General damages and aggravated damages awarded by the High Court were reasonable and are affirmed. Special damages for private and overseas treatment were not fully justified; appellate court reduced recoverable special damages to one-third of claimed private treatment costs, awarding RM19,586.72 (Malaysia) and SGD65,532.60 (Singapore). Costs of RM250,0…
30 Jan 2026

MOHD ZALMI BIN YOP 1. ) Ho Kin Kuan 2. ) NURLIANA BINTI OMRAN 3. ) PENGARAH PEJABAT KESIHATAN PERGIGIAN DAERAH KERIAN 4. ) MUNIRAH BINTI SOFI 5. ) ADILAH BINTI ABU ZAIMAH 6. ) NUR HANISAH BINTI HABEEB RAHMAN 7. ) CHI CHIA SEIN 8. ) KEE KHAN

Citation

AB-21NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-21NCvC-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that any defendant breached the relevant standard of care and that any such breach caused the deceased's death; defendants acted within accepted medical practice (Bolam/Bolitho), the deceased failed to disclose her diabetes which was material to management, and the refusal of a post‑mortem prevented definitive causation; accordingly the claim is dismissed.
29 Jan 2026

P.G. DORAISAMY A/L P.GOPAL Kenanga Investment Bank Berhad

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-135-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-135-01/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in wholly refusing discovery; documents evidencing receipt of deposits and documents evidencing instructions/mandates (First and Second Category) are relevant, exist, are in respondents' possession or control, and are necessary for fair disposal and saving costs under Order 24 r8 RC 2012 and therefore must be produced; documents that would reveal third‑party CDS/trading account identities (Third Category) are prohibited by SICDA 1991 s43 and must not be disclosed.
26 Jan 2026

1. ) MOHAMAD SUKRI BIN HAT 2. ) KOPERAL JANNATUL NAIM BIN ABDUL MANAB 3. ) KONSTABEL DERISON BIN PINGOT 4. ) FADLY ADZWARDY BIN TAHIR 5. ) RAMILAH BINTI SUPERMAN 6. ) INSP MOHAMAD ADAM DANIYAL @ MOHANDASS BIN ABDULLAH 7. ) ASP WINSTON ANAK

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-566-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-566-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed that statutory obligations in the Police Act, Lockup Rules and Perintah Tetap impose a duty to ensure detainee safety irrespective of prior knowledge of suicidal tendencies; breaches (failure to conduct prompt medical examination, failure to maintain and monitor CCTV/live feed, failure to conduct patrols and withholding CCTV evidence) caused and enabled the suicide, establishing negligence and causation against the 1st–6th officers and vicarious liability of the Government; misfeasance was not proven for bad faith; aggravated damages were not warranted and set asi…
23 Jan 2026

Ng Lay Heong 1. ) Loh Guan Lye & Sons Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dr. Teoh Mei Shi

Citation

PA-23NCvC-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-23NCvC-28-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden: no expert evidence was adduced to establish that D2 breached the applicable standard of care or that any breach materially caused the deceased’s death; unrebutted defence expert evidence established Stage 4 EGFR exon-19 metastatic lung cancer present in April 2019 and indicated that earlier treatment would not have altered outcome (lead-time bias and treatment toxicity); MMC disciplinary findings are not determinative in civil liability; because D2 is not liable, D1 is not liable and Plaintiff’s claim fails.
23 Jan 2026

PRISTINE POWER SDN BHD 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH, DAERAH GOMBAK 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK, SELANGOR 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR

Citation

BA-21NCvC-23-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-23-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the Scheduled/Acquired Land had been validly acquired and vested in the State and was wrongly included in the 6th defendant’s final title due to negligent statutory conduct by the Land Administrator/Registrar/State Director and fraudulent/dishonest conduct by the 6th and 7th defendants; therefore the final title is erroneous/defeasible, declaratory relief and orders to amend PA235704 and set aside the final title were granted, EKVE has locus standi, the State is vicariously liable, and EKVE is entitled to damages of RM9,842,676.68 with interest…
20 Jan 2026

1. ) XXXX 2. ) SHAMIRRA HAZLINDA BINTI MOHD RUSLI 1. ) MUHAMMAD ALIEF AMIRUL BIN ALIAS 2. ) ROZITA BINTI MUSA PIHAK KETIGA Shamirra Hazlinda Binti Mohd Rusli

Citation

DA-A53KJ-325-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53KJ-325-05/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the first defendant breached his duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout and driving at an unreasonable speed for the conditions, evidenced by no braking marks and severe impact; the second defendant, as registered owner, is vicariously liable; the plaintiff (age 4) and his mother are not contributorily negligent; accordingly defendants are 100% liable and plaintiff is entitled to awarded general and special damages as quantified by the court.
16 Jan 2026

CONDOLINK SDN BHD 1. ) SDB PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) INTA BINA SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA ELKA ELZA LEGACY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-327-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-327-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts linking the First Defendant to the alleged trespass; absent pleaded control, authorisation or assumption of responsibility, the independent contractor principle applies and no non-delegable duty was established; therefore the claim against the First Defendant is plainly unsustainable and an abuse of process, justifying strike out under Order 18 r.19 ROC.