Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice privilege

Legal area

Court

20 Apr 2026

1. ) CHONG WUI EN 2. ) CHONG HUI YI WONG SHEN NEE

Citation

WA-12BNCC-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal: it upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent contracted in her personal capacity and paid from her personal account; the delivered digital platforms were non-functional so there was total failure of consideration entitling restitution of RM593,715.00; the WhatsApp message was admissible as an admission not protected by without prejudice privilege; the Second Appellant remained a partner during the contract period and is jointly and severally liable under Partnership Act s11; and the counterclaim was rightly dismissed for lack of proof and fabri…
9 Feb 2026

BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-389-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-389-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The without prejudice communications are protected by privilege and inadmissible because the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception; the alleged impropriety was not clear on the face of the communications and depended on subsequent conduct and hindsight, and unmarked messages forming part of the series are equally privileged.
28 Jan 2026

PEMPETISYEN MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD THB POWER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-187-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the adjudication decision created an enforceable entitlement and the respondent failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or to show immediate means of payment; without prejudice communications relied upon in the parties' affidavits were properly before the court or waived; therefore enforcement by winding up was appropriate and the winding-up petition is allowed, while the competing motion to appoint private liquidators is dismissed on the facts.
30 Jul 2025

RICH PRUDENCE SDN BHD CENVIRO RECYCLING & RECOVERY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-429-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-429-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The written Agreement, including its Entire Agreement clause and Clause 9(C) notice/final weight provisions, governs; the Plaintiff failed to prove a collateral contract or detrimental reliance on alleged representations; without prejudice correspondence is privileged and did not produce a settlement; variance claims fail for non-compliance with contractual notice requirements; Defendant's counterclaim not proven; accordingly both claims are dismissed and no costs ordered.
30 Jul 2025

RICH PRUDENCE SDN BHD CENVIRO RECYCLING & RECOVERY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-429-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-429-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Agreement's express terms and Entire Agreement clause govern the parties' relationship; the Plaintiff failed to prove a binding collateral contract or incorporation of pre-contractual representations and failed to comply with Clause 9(C)'s immediate/14-day notice requirement for variance claims; without prejudice correspondence was inadmissible and did not result in a settlement; the Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim on balance of probabilities; accordingly both claim and counterclaim are dismissed.
15 Jul 2025

1. ) HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD 2. ) MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD 1. ) MENTERI, KEMENTERIAN KOMUNIKASI (sebelum ini dikenali sebagai KEMENTERIAN PENERANGAN, KOMUNIKASI DAN KEBUDAYAAN), YB DATUK AHMAD FAHMI BIN MOHAMED FADZIL 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-22-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-22-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found Exhibits PN3 and PN5 did not contain settlement negotiations but only requests for additional time and thus were not privileged despite being marked 'Without Prejudice'; accordingly the Defendant's application to expunge those exhibits and related affidavit paragraphs was dismissed. The Plaintiff's summary judgment application was also dismissed and the matter was ordered to be tried fully.
24 Oct 2024

PEMPETISYEN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD MEGA SASA SDN BHD

Citation

KA-28NCC-20-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-28NCC-20-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned correspondence objectively formed part of genuine settlement negotiations and attracted without prejudice privilege under s 23 Evidence Act 1950; therefore paragraphs 4–8 and Exhibit A-2 were inadmissible and were struck out and expunged, with consequential directions for purged affidavits and revised submissions and costs in the cause.
24 Jun 2024

MFORCE BIKE HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. HONDA GIKEN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA (juga dikenali sebagai Honda Motor Co., Ltd)

Citation

WA-23NCvC-68-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-68-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Exhibit TLH-3 and the affidavit paragraphs referring to it were a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement and are therefore protected by the without prejudice privilege and inadmissible; the genuineness of negotiations is assessed by intent to settle not by the quantum of the offer; accordingly paragraphs 10(i), 24(c) and Exhibit TLH-3 are struck out. Separately, bringing assessment of damages proceedings pursuant to the Court of Appeal's order cannot constitute the tort of abuse of legal process and such pleading is liable to be struck out under Order 18 r19 ROC.
2 Apr 2024

Malayan Banking Berhad 1. ) DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd 2. ) David Chua Kok Tee 3. ) Hoo Soot Khing 4. ) Chua Hung Tatt

Citation

WA-22NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-815-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to prove any manifest error in the Certificate of Indebtedness and did not raise any bona fide triable issue; the Letter of Offer terms (monthly compounding) prevail as incorporated into the Facility Agreement; without prejudice letters are privileged and inadmissible but their exclusion does not undermine the conclusive Certificate; accordingly summary judgment is warranted for the certified sum with contractual interest and costs.
21 Feb 2024

GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD CRYSTAL PROMENADE SDN BHD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI H LAND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-455-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-455-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The letters were inadmissible as without prejudice; clause 2.2 unambiguously limited the tenancy to seven renewal terms totalling twenty years such that the tenancy expired on 31.01.2024; there was no evidence of agreement to renew beyond that date; the plaintiff's claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and raised no triable issue, so the defendant's strike out and summary judgment applications succeeded and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.