Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of computer-generated documents

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

ORG VS SDN BHD ZHOU JIANMEI

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-24-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-24-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SD1 possessed implied and ostensible authority to negotiate rental variations and the respondent's prolonged acquiescence to reduced payments gave rise to estoppel; the Magistrate's exclusion of the payment summary was erroneous given SD1's testimony; the respondent failed to prove repair costs with admissible evidence; accordingly the Magistrate's awards for RM37,435.66 (arrears) and RM3,000 (repairs) are unsustainable and are set aside, and costs awarded to the appellant.
25 Sept 2025

Arzanna Binti Abdullah 1. ) Ambank (M) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Kasha Parking Sdn Bhd 3. ) La Ode Ardi Rasila

Citation

BA-12B-70-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-70-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Bank (defendant first) not liable—no reasonable foreseeability or sufficient nexus; security company (defendant second) liable vicariously for the security guard's intentional killing because the employer created the employment conditions and risk enabling the guard to be armed and act in the course of employment; plaintiff's medical termination was lawful; plaintiff entitled to damages against defendant second as quantified by the court.
14 Jul 2025

TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GENBINA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-219-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-219-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff owned the cables, the excavation works carried out by defendants at the identified location caused the damage, Defendant 1 had knowledge and supervisory responsibility and failed to ensure reasonable precautions by the subcontractor, thus Defendant 1 is vicariously and jointly liable; plaintiff proved quantum predominantly by contractor invoices and internal records accepted under s.90A, entitling plaintiff to RM286,448.75, interest at 5% from 19/9/2019 and costs RM10,000.
7 Apr 2022

BINACHUAN SDN. BHD. AKS SEPAKAT SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-A72NCC-433-05/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCC-433-05/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court admitted ID3 as P3 relying on s.90A(6) and hearsay exception s.32(1)(b) together with s.73A and SP1's contemporaneous knowledge; contemporaneous invoices and account summaries established that Defendant made progressive payments but did not pay in full; conversion calculations were consistently expressed and accepted in cubic metres during the relevant period; Defendant failed to prove full payment or the counterclaim and raised issues late; accordingly Plaintiff's claim of RM94,668.78 succeeded and Defendant's appeal and counterclaim were dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

ORG VS SDN BHD ZHOU JIANMEI

Arzanna Binti Abdullah 1. ) Ambank (M) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Kasha Parking Sdn Bhd 3. ) La Ode Ardi Rasila

TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) PUNCAK NIAGA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) GENBINA SDN. BHD.

BINACHUAN SDN. BHD. AKS SEPAKAT SDN. BHD.