Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anticipatory breach

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2026

PEMBINAAN MENTARI MUDA (M) SDN BHD SLG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72C-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72C-9-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court struck out the writ and statement of claim because the monetary claims were paid in full rendering those causes of action academic and obviously unsustainable; the plaintiff's prayer to compel a non‑party architect to issue CMGD was impermissible and premature as the architect's certification is a matter of professional discretion and the defects liability period had not yet lapsed; the claim for the second moiety was likewise premature and anticipatory breach was not established; maintaining the suit under these circumstances amounted to an abuse of process, therefore Enclosure 24…
19 Oct 2023

GEONEX (M) SDN BHD 1. ) BAYU MINING SDN BHD 2. ) OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ

Citation

22NCVC-60-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-60-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that an implied contract existed between Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, that Plaintiff had performed by paying tributes and conducting mining operations, that the Defendants' termination was invalid because they acted inconsistently with the agreed payment terms and had in fact received payments, and therefore Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and costs of RM150,000.
27 Sept 2023

1. ) SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) TRIGSTATION SDN BHD KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

DA-21NCvC-6-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-6-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the defendant validly terminated the contracts: defendant complied with contractual procedures (warnings, notice of default, remedial period) and plaintiffs were so behind programme and lacked remedy that termination was justified; plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to damages; defendant is entitled to recover the main engine, gear box and related equipment paid for by defendant; plaintiffs ordered to surrender equipment and allow defendant access; costs RM30,000 subject to taxation.
25 Nov 2022

WMA Resources Sdn Bhd KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN

Citation

WA-21NCvC-67-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-67-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 27.12.2017 Surat Setuju Terima constituted a binding contract pending formal contract execution; the plaintiff fundamentally failed to perform its obligations (notably delivery of the original site and execution of formal documents), produced no cogent evidence that the defendants repudiated or substituted the contract or that frustration under s.57 applied, and therefore the plaintiff's claim for breach and damages fails and is dismissed.
3 Aug 2022

LAI NAM FOO HEALTHCON SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-23-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-23-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appeal was dismissed. The Notice of Appeal was served late and the appellant made no attempt to regularise the defect, exposing the appeal to being struck out; on the merits the Sessions Court findings were not plainly wrong: plaintiff proved it gave specific instructions and supplied sufficient materials, the defendant failed to deliver 20,000 gowns by the contractual due date causing plaintiff to engage a third party at higher cost, the defendant's anticipatory breach and 'work after paid' defences failed, and the plaintiff's claimed losses were established. The High Court therefore uph…
14 Sept 2021

Dato' Khor Wooi Chen METRO SUPPLIES MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Tripartite Agreement did not impose liability on D2 for RPGT or for the RM1,000,000 difference where the respondent sold the property to a third party before the five-year repurchase period; the respondent's premature sale frustrated the TA and limited D2's liabilities. D2 remained liable under the TA as guarantor/indemnifier for rental arrears only for the period the lease subsisted (limited to 15 months), and the High Court orders were set aside except for awards on insurance and rental loss of RM600,000; interest at 5% was ma…

Malaysia Case Law

PEMBINAAN MENTARI MUDA (M) SDN BHD SLG CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

GEONEX (M) SDN BHD 1. ) BAYU MINING SDN BHD 2. ) OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ

1. ) SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) TRIGSTATION SDN BHD KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

WMA Resources Sdn Bhd KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN

LAI NAM FOO HEALTHCON SDN BHD

Dato' Khor Wooi Chen METRO SUPPLIES MARKETING SDN BHD