Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calculation of damages

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2025

TOK JIANG WAI ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-46-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-46-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the plaintiff satisfied the prerequisites for summary judgment under Order 14 and had a prima facie entitlement to the contractual LAD; the defendant failed to establish any meritorious defence requiring a full trial. The Covid‑19 exclusion of 289 days was accepted and deducted. Time was not 'of the essence' so plaintiff was limited to LAD under clause 24(2). LAD is to be calculated on the contract purchase price as stated in the SPA (RM837,906.00), not on any discounted/paid price. Actual loss need not be proved to recover contractual LAD. Summary judgment was therefore e…
4 Jun 2025

1. ) KOH THUANG KOK 2. ) TAN CHEN FUI ERA UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A52NCvC-339-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A52NCvC-339-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court held defendant had no meritorious defence: COVID-19 Act exclusions did not apply to the commercial shop-office SPA; SPA became unconditional on 16.11.2017 when Supplemental Agreement classified the lot as non‑Bumiputera, making the developer's obligation to deliver vacant possession due on 16.11.2020; actual delay of 605 days occurred and agreed liquidated damages pursuant to SPA are enforceable without proof of actual loss; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and awarded with amended LAD of RM145,664.10 plus interest and costs.
23 Apr 2025

1. ) WONG CHIN WOON 2. ) LEE YOKE MUI TRIDENT SUCCESS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-1186-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-1186-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found all Order 14 prerequisites satisfied and that the defendant failed to raise any triable issue of merit. The deposit payment of RM2,000 on 10.2.2017 constituted the effective commencement of the statutory sale agreement for the purposes of the 54‑month period; KPKT’s 593‑day extension applies; LAD is to be calculated on the contract purchase price RM437,600; plaintiffs’ LAD calculation (RM62,462.92) was correct. Summary judgment was therefore granted for the plaintiffs with costs of RM1,500.00.
24 Mar 2025

1. ) CHOW CHEE WAH 2. ) MOHD DHIYAUDDIN ASSIDDIQ BIN MOHD ZAID 3. ) WILLIAM TEH YEW HOUNG 4. ) DENISE TEOH SHYN YONG XTREME MERIDIAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-244-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-244-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the 48-month delivery period stated in the sale agreements is valid because the extension was lawfully obtained before the Ang Ming Lee decision and Obata-Ambak treats Ang Ming Lee as prospective; plaintiffs are nevertheless entitled to LAD only for delays beyond the valid 48-month period, with LAD calculated from the date of payment of the deposit/booking fee using the purchase price in the Sale and Purchase Agreement; interest at 5% per annum from filing until full payment and costs ordered as below.
26 Jun 2024

LOGANATHAN A/L MANNAR TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

BL-12BNCvC-25-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCvC-25-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Sessions Court judge had judicially appreciated the evidence and was not plainly wrong in finding meter tampering supplying the Defendant's premises; under Section 38(3) ESA the registered account holder is liable for loss of revenue from tampering regardless of who committed the tampering; the Plaintiff's calculation of loss based on pre-drop average usage was accepted; appeal dismissed and costs ordered.
11 Jun 2024

1. ) MASRIAH BINTI SABRI 2. ) MOHD AZMI BIN NGATENAN STRONG VIEW REALTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

JE-A72NCvC-10-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JE-A72NCvC-10-03/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held that the sale agreement was governed by the mandatory Schedule I statutory form, the defendant failed to rebut that finding or to demonstrate a meritorious defence (including proof of any 167-day exemption), and therefore summary judgment was appropriate; liquidated damages are payable at 10% per annum of the purchase price computed day to day for the period of delay, entitling the plaintiffs to the claimed sum and costs.
7 Dec 2023

URBAN DOMAIN SDN. BHD. 1. ) PINS OSC & MAINTENANCE SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) PERAK INTEGRATED NETWORK SERVICES SDN BHD 3. ) XXXX

Citation

W-03(IM)(NCC)-70-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)(NCC)-70-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the Liability Judgment and clause 8.1.1 fix the accounting period by reference to the last Work Order and that a subsequent winding‑up of PINS OSC could not be used to shorten the period of PINS’s contractual liability; accordingly the Registrar’s Order was reinstated and the High Court’s amendment setting the period to the winding‑up date was set aside; separately, the High Court’s Quantum Order was correct to permit deduction only for MCMC Priority Payments and was affirmed.
4 Dec 2023

SAW BEE WEI SKY CREATION INTERIOR SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-34-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-34-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed; appellate court found no basis to overturn the Sessions Court’s findings that appellant breached the Advance Reward Agreement, accepted conditional advances, failed to repay RM30,416.59 and that the total proven loss and sums due of RM243,721.62 were properly calculated and supported by documentary and testimonial evidence (including admission under s73A).
28 Mar 2023

1. ) TECH FOOD INGREDIENTS SDN BHD 2. ) A ONE PILING SDN BHD 1. ) BLUE SEAL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) Lye Sam Yut [Notis Pemberhentian Di Kandungan 24] 3. ) Cheah Chee Meng [Notis Pemberhentian Di Kandungan 24] 4. ) Chia Heong Lin [Notis Pemberhenti

Citation

WA-22NCC-17-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-17-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the 1st LOA was superseded by the Supersede Letter and the 2nd LOA is the operative contract giving A One Piling privity to sue Blue Seal; plaintiffs could not simultaneously allege they were induced by fraud to enter the LOAs and at the same time affirm the LOAs and sue for breach — fraud claims therefore failed; no sufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy or dishonesty to lift the corporate veil; Blue Seal admitted panels were not Bomba Class 'O' and, together with the unchallenged expert and other evidence and defendants calling no evidence, breac…
25 Feb 2022

1. ) P. JENARTHENEN A/L R. PATHMANAPHAN 2. ) SUMIJA A/P S. KRISHNAN ENERGISER PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

AA-B54-2-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B54-2-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Delay in delivering vacant possession was admitted and the contract unambiguously entitled plaintiffs to liquidated ascertained damages at 10% per annum of the purchase price calculated from the date the agreed delivery obligation was breached until practical completion; defendant failed to establish force majeure or mitigation and the LAD must be computed on the contractual purchase price, yielding RM269,477.28 after credit for partial payment.