Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Volenti non fit injuria

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2026

SOCAR MOBILITY MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ) GOBALAN A/L ARUMUGAM, SEBAGAI BAPA YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA PAVITHRA DEIWI A/P GOBALAN, SIMATI, UNTUK DIRI SENDIRI 2. ) AANATHAVALI A/P SUBRAMANIAM, SEBAGAI IBU YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA P

Citation

JA-12B-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-25-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the accident was caused by catastrophic brake failure; res ipsa loquitur and the adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 were properly applied against the owner who had custody and disposed of the vehicle; owner owed a direct duty of care to passengers; apportionment of liability at 90% to SOCAR and 10% to driver was justified; Respondents' cross-appeal on quantum succeeded in part awarding P5 RM83,160 for loss of actual earnings and RM399,168 for loss of earning capacity; interest and costs orders as specified.
8 Dec 2025

YONG SHUI TIAN MAJLIS PERBANDARAN LANGKAWI BANDARAYA PELANCONGAN

Citation

K-01(NCvC)(W)-36-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

K-01(NCvC)(W)-36-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Pantai Chenang beach is within the respondent's administrative area as declared in the Kedah Gazette; s.101 LGA 1976 imposes a statutory duty and duty of care on the local authority to supervise, maintain and remove trees that may endanger public safety including trees on private or State land; respondent breached that duty by failing to supervise or maintain coconut trees on Pantai Chenang beach, and is therefore wholly liable for the appellant's injuries; High Court judgment dismissing claim was set aside and matter remitted for assessment of damages.
8 Jul 2025

1. ) ENAPAK MARKETING SDN. BHD. 2. ) NG WUOI UOI 1. ) GUARDIAN HEALTH AND BEAUTY SDN. BHD. 2. ) SOPHIA HONG 3. ) DATO' SERI DR. NOOR HISHAM BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) DATO' SRI DR. ADHAM BIN BABA 5. ) DR. LEE BOON CHYE 6. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MAL

Citation

PA-22NCvC-232-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-232-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D1 did not breach the Agreement because its temporary removal of the product was a bona fide exercise of contractual recall rights in response to an official public health advisory; D3–D7 owed no actionable duty of care to the Plaintiffs in issuing the Article within their public health functions and the Plaintiffs failed to prove mala fide or proximate negligence; accordingly all claims dismissed with costs.
27 Mar 2025

1. ) GOBALAN A/L ARUMUGAM, SEBAGAI BAPA YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA PAVITHRA DEIWI A/P GOBALAN, SIMATI, UNTUK DIRI SENDIRI 2. ) AANATHAVALI A/P SUBRAMANIAM, SEBAGAI IBU YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA PAVITHRA DEIWI A/P GOBALAN, SIMAT

Citation

JA-A53KJ-358-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-358-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the evidence the court accepted plaintiffs' primary factual account that brakes failed, found D2 failed to discharge its burden to show the vehicle was roadworthy, drew an adverse inference under s114(g) because D2 disposed of the vehicle contrary to investigation directions, and applied res ipsa loquitur; therefore D2 breached its duty of care to passengers and is 90% liable while the driver (D1) was 10% negligent for failing to mitigate impact.
25 Oct 2024

1. ) YONG LEONG (Mendakwa Sebagai Bapa Yang Sah Dan TanggunganKepada Simati, Yong Chi Lim) 2. ) XXXX 3. ) YAP EE TIONG 4. ) TEE YONG SIONG 1. ) MUNIANDY A/L ELUMALAI 2. ) SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION

Citation

CB-A53KJ-205-09/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CB-A53KJ-205-09/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to amend (Lampiran 104) was refused because it was filed at a material late stage (after close of evidence and shortly before filing written submissions), the defendants failed to provide a cogent and reasonable explanation for the delay, the proposed amendment introduced a new defence that risked prejudicing the plaintiffs and the court applied established authorities requiring cogent reasons and full particulars; costs would not suffice to cure the prejudice.
19 Sept 2022

FAZIQ NAZRIF BIN MUSA KASSIM BIN SUANG

Citation

JD-A53KJ-53-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JD-A53KJ-53-06/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant was negligent in exiting the junction and failed to give priority or ensure safety; the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent (speed) based on investigative evidence and damage patterns; liability is apportioned equally (50:50). The Plaintiff's claim is allowed and damages are awarded as assessed by the court with interest and costs on the stated bases.
11 Nov 2021

AA-11B-5-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

AA-11B-5-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-11B-5-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Magistrates' Court lacked statutory power to make declaratory orders because the Subordinate Courts Act expressly omits that power for Magistrates' Courts; accordingly the Magistrate's declaratory finding was struck down, and on the merits the club was entitled to rely on its exclusion clauses and the volenti defence and the respondent failed to prove vicarious liability or future treatment, so the appeal was allowed with costs.
11 Nov 2021

ISKANDAR POLO CLUB IPOH Nor Yatimah Binti Osman

Citation

AA-11B-5-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-11B-5-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Magistrates' Courts do not have statutory power to grant declaratory judgments where such power is expressly omitted by the Subordinate Courts Act; Rules of Court cannot expand subordinate court jurisdiction. On the facts, exclusion clauses (Clause 22 and the Certificate of Exclusion of Liability) are lawful and applicable to members engaging in inherently risky activities like horse riding, invoking volenti non fit injuria, and the respondent failed to prove that D1 was the club's employee to ground vicarious liability or that future care/operation were necessary.
11 Oct 2020

KAMARUDDIN BIN MAT NASIR 1. SAHAR BANNU BINTI MOHAMAD 2. SEKOLAH MENENGAH KEBANGSAAN TENGKU INDERA PETRA 2 3. PENGARAH PENDIDIKAN NEGERI KELANTAN 4. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-16-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that school authorities owed a duty of care to the pupil, that they breached that duty by failing to ensure a known-broken and dangerous basketball goalpost was removed or rendered safe, that the presence of the dangerous equipment made the risk of injury reasonably foreseeable irrespective of which game was being played, and that on the balance of probabilities the defendants' breach caused the pupil's fatal head injury; the defendants were 100% liable, vicariously where applicable, and damages were awarded accordingly.