Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of damages

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

1. ) Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad 2. ) Mazawati Osman 3. ) Low Koe Sei 4. ) Koh Mei Leng 5. ) Abdul Malek Bin Ahmad Zaini 6. ) Haironi Binti Raffaiee 7. ) Chong Sun Chan 8. ) Tong Yap Lan 9. ) Syarifah Aliza Binti Syed Azauddin 10. ) Juraimi Azaha

Citation

WA-22NCvC-655-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-655-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiffs' substantive claim was finally dismissed and affirmed on appeal, the underlying basis for the interlocutory injunction failed and the plaintiffs' undertaking to pay damages is operative even without a separate retrospective finding that the injunction was wrongly granted; accordingly the defendants are entitled to proceed with assessment and the plaintiffs' applications to strike out and to stay are dismissed.
2 Apr 2026

NORAINI BINTI JOHARI 1. ) MOHAMAD HANIFF BIN DAUD 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-B51KJ-3-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B51KJ-3-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court apportioned liability equally: plaintiff 50% and defendants jointly 50% because plaintiff rode in the emergency lane, was unlicensed, unwell and inattentive while defendants drove against traffic in pursuit of a suspect and ought to have prioritized public safety; the court assessed and awarded damages as itemised in the judgment (General damages RM 377,518.40; Special damages RM 312,348.67; Total RM 689,867.07) and directed interest as specified.
27 Feb 2026

MOHD ZAMRY BIN MD YUSOF KU MARIAM JAMILAH BINTI KU ABDULLAH

Citation

BI-A73KJ-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BI-A73KJ-132-09/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's version that the defendant struck him from behind was more probable and consistent (police report, medical records, plaintiff's persistent account); the defendant's account was inconsistent with pleadings, delayed and unsupported, and defendant failed to call a material witness and produce contemporaneous evidence (photographs) such that adverse inferences under s114(g) Evidence Act applied; plaintiff discharged burden under ss101 and 103 Evidence Act; defendant held 100% liable.
24 Feb 2026

RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

Citation

WA-B54-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B54-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed: the plaintiff filed the assessment application 7 days late in breach of the mandatory one-month period under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012; the explanations proffered (waiting for draft order, awaiting possible appeal, and counsel oversight) were not cogent; Aturan 1A does not rescue non-accidental or negligent failures; and the plaintiff's pleading did not seek "damages to be assessed," so the assessment procedure under Aturan 37 was inapplicable.
24 Feb 2026

1. ) LEUNG KAI FOOK MEDICAL CO. PTE LTD 2. ) LEUNG KAI FOOK MEDICAL SDN BHD TJS WORLDWIDE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-71-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-71-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Liability having been finally determined by summary judgment, damages are compensatory and to be assessed liberally but on evidence. Plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant's 330 seized units caused the full claimed revenue shortfall; plaintiffs proved brand goodwill and countermeasure expenses. Court reduced loss of business profit to RM30,000 (recognising limited scale of infringement), assessed loss of goodwill at RM200,000 (presumed in passing off, adjusted for proportionality), allowed countermeasure costs RM7,305, and awarded residual general damages RM25,000 to avoid double recov…
24 Feb 2026

RANJIT SINGH A/L SADHU SINGH KHOO KAH JIN

Citation

WA-B54-78-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B54-78-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff's application for an order of assessment filed on 3 October 2025 was out of time relative to the mandatory one‑month period from the date of judgment (27 August 2025) under Aturan 37 Kaedah 1(1) KKM 2012; no cogent reasons were shown to justify extension under Aturan 3 Kaedah 5, counsel's mistake is insufficient, and Aturan 1A cannot cure the breach of a mandatory rule; accordingly the application is dismissed with costs.
11 Feb 2026

MTR FREIGHT SDN BHD J&T EXPRESS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-27NCC-8-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-8-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce specific documents ordered under a perfected discovery order that was later varied to include a peremptory (unless) term; plaintiff's failure to raise non-possession during discovery and failure to appeal the amended order estopped it from now claiming inability to comply; Order 24 r 16 authorises the court to enforce the peremptory sanction, therefore striking out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim and defence to counterclaim and entering judgment on the defendant's counterclaim was just and proportionate; assessment of damages was ordered acco…
5 Feb 2026

MUHAMMAD RAFFIEUDIN BIN SUNANDAR 1. ) CHONG CHOI YUN 2. ) YEO HSIU CHIN

Citation

BA-A73KJ-1356-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A73KJ-1356-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Defendant failed to take reasonable care before turning left, did not observe mirrors or the plaintiff's position and thereby obstructed the plaintiff's lane; this breach of traffic rules and failure to keep proper lookout establishes negligence on the balance of probabilities. Liability apportioned 80% to Defendant and 20% to Plaintiff. Damages assessed on cogent medical evidence and comparable authorities: general damages RM32,500 and special damages RM8,923.50, total RM41,423.50; interest and costs awarded as claimed and per scale respectively.
3 Feb 2026

1. ) Norrisah Binti Abu Bakar 2. ) MANSOR BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) ZAHARAH BINTI ABDULLAH @ WOON SEE MOI 4. ) ZALIHA BINTI ABU BAKAR 5. ) HAMIDAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 6. ) NORIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 7. ) ROGIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 8. ) SANI BIN ABU BAKAR 9. )

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-179-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-179-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court concluded the trial judge was not plainly wrong: absence of contemporaneous loan documentation, evidence of full payment to solicitors, the Order for Sale and conduct of the parties supported that the SPA was a genuine sale rather than a sham moneylending transaction; misconduct by solicitors did not convert the SPA into an illegal loan; the 5th Appellant's appeal was incompetent due to bankruptcy; therefore the High Court's dismissal was affirmed and costs ordered.
30 Jan 2026

Sime Darby Property (Bukit Jelutong) Sdn Bhd Rosli Bin Musa

Citation

B-02(C)(W)-594-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(W)-594-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court of Appeal affirmed High Court: purchasers proved existence and causation of defects by admissible oral and expert evidence; signatures on DRFs/FFs were forged and could not absolve developer; developer could not validly contract out of statutory protections in Schedule I in a manner defeating buyer protection; DLP bars only patent defects discoverable within period but does not bar claims for latent defects; rectification costs proven and awards upheld.