Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

THT TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD PLASMA MATRIK SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCC-9-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-9-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to prove delivery on a balance of probabilities because the delivery notes and internal records were largely unilateral and unacknowledged, plaintiff's witnesses made admissions undermining delivery, documentary inconsistencies remained unexplained, the burden of proof stayed with the plaintiff and no prima facie case existed to justify an adverse inference; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment could not safely stand and the appeal was allowed.
28 Jan 2026

MANAF BIN BEDO LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

Citation

TA-12BNCvC-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

TA-12BNCvC-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the cause of action accrued by 2012 (subject to s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953) and the writ filed in 2023 was time-barred; alternatively, even on the merits the 2009 minutes created an unfulfilled condition precedent (break-even by 2012) and the 2010 minutes merely allocated funds to manager and staff rather than creating an immediate, enforceable personal obligation to pay the plaintiff RM300,000; the Sessions Court's factual findings were open to it and are affirmed.
16 Jan 2026

1. ) LAI CHEE MIN 2. ) PHOONG SIEW MAE WONG CHOY MEE

Citation

BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellants established possession of Lots 32 and 60 on the balance of probabilities by oral testimony and contemporaneous documentary and photographic evidence; the Respondent’s restaurant operations produced persistent oily smoke/odour, prolonged preparatory noise and parking/traffic disruption that, in the residential locality, exceeded tolerable levels and constituted actionable private nuisance. The Sessions Court erred in requiring formal title and in rejecting the nuisance claim. Appeal allowed, Sessions Court judgment set aside, and a permanent injunction, costs and referral for as…
15 Dec 2025

MAGNIFICIENT EMPIRE SDN BHD. MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The insured failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loss was caused by a fraudulent or dishonest act committed by the named employee during the uninterrupted continuance of employment; most disputed cheques were dated and encashed after resignation, the discovery clause did not apply to resignation and suspicion without proof cannot trigger the policy; therefore policy conditions were not satisfied and the Sessions Court's dismissal was correct.
3 Dec 2025

UNIJAYA ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SDN BHD MUHAMMAD IZZUDDIN BIN AB RAHIM

Citation

BA-16-46-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-46-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the DGM's finding because the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving on the substantive merits that the Respondent's misconduct justified immediate termination; warning letters lacked sufficient clarity and the Appellant did not demonstrate just cause or excuse such that failure to hold a domestic inquiry could be excused, therefore the dismissal was wrongful and the DGM's award stands.
19 Nov 2025

1. ) NUR HIDAYAH BINTI ABU BAKAR (Menuntut sebagai isteri yang sah dan tanggungan yang sah kepada MOHAMAD SHARIL RAMZHAN BIN MOHD RIZAL (Simati) untuk kesedihan dan kedukacitaan serta kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7, Akta Undang-Un

Citation

BA-12B-117-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-117-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found trial judge erred in inferring the deceased could and should have seen the stationary vehicle in time to avoid collision; evidence (dashcam and traffic conditions) showed 'agony of the moment' and no adequate basis for 30% contributory negligence. Therefore Defendant First is 100% liable; Defendant Second's non‑liability is affirmed. Trial award on funeral costs and loss of dependency corrected using proven monthly income RM3,150 (less one‑third living expenses) producing monthly dependency RM2,100, multiplier 16 years, giving loss of dependency RM403,200; funeral expens…
11 Nov 2025

Lamah Moriba [TIMBALAN ]

Citation

BA-42K-6-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-42K-6-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed conviction because prosecution proved all elements of s489C: BNM expert confirmed the 1189 RM100 notes were counterfeit; appellant had physical control (car keys) and led police to the Myvi where the bag was found, establishing possession and knowledge by inference; appellant's conduct pointing to the bag was admissible under Evidence Act ss27 and s8; gaps in chain of custody and failure to call vehicle owner were not fatal; appellant's prior conduct and communications with the complainant established intent to use the notes as genuine.
31 Oct 2025

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD 1. ) ANIK HOSSAIN RONY 2. ) MD SUHAL MIA 3. ) MD SUJON MIAH 4. ) ABDUL AHAD 5. ) ROHOMOT ALI 6. ) ALAMGIR HOSSEN 7. ) MD JUWEL HOSSAIN 8. ) MD AJHARUL ISLAM 9. ) MD BABUR ALI 10. ) BADSHA MIA 11. ) MEHEDI HASSAN MAH

Citation

BA-16-63-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-63-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ADM correctly applied s72 to allow representative testimony; contracts unambiguously entitled respondents to basic wage from date of arrival; appellant failed to substantiate assertions that wages were conditional on work, failed to produce reliable source documents proving advances or refusals to work; no basis for appellate interference under the plainly-wrong test, therefore ADM's allowance of claims upheld and appeals dismissed.
31 Oct 2025

AECOR INNOVATION SDN BHD 1. ) MD SHAHIDUL BAPARI 2. ) MD MOHATAB ALI 3. ) SHIFUL ISLAM 4. ) AHAMMAD ALI 5. ) MD YOUSUF ALI 6. ) JEWEL RANA 7. ) JUWEL MIA 8. ) MD MEHEDI HASAN 9. ) MOHAMMAD AKTER HOSSAIN RASEL 10. ) MD EMON KHAN 11. ) MOHAMM

Citation

BA-16-64-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-64-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the ADM correctly applied s72 to allow representative evidence, correctly construed the clear contractual terms entitling basic wages from arrival, and properly found the Appellant failed to prove wages were conditional on work or that lawful advances justified deductions; absent a plainly wrong finding by the ADM, appellate intervention was not warranted; therefore the ADM's decision allowing respondents' wage claims was affirmed.
23 Oct 2025

Syarikat Sen Joo Heng Sdn Bhd Pua Ching Kiau

Citation

BA-16-47-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-16-47-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted DGM's factual finding that the respondent was terminated by the appellant via Mr Low but found DGM erred in law by disregarding that the respondent was 62 and had reached the statutory minimum retirement age; applying the Minimum Retirement Age Act, relevant regulation and authority in Colgate Palmolive, the respondent is not entitled to termination benefits, therefore the DGM's award was set aside.