Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consideration

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD YU KUAN CHON

Citation

WA-22NCC-446-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-446-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Defendant’s guarantees were valid and enforceable: the Defendant had admitted the debt and entered a settlement, the recitals established consideration, the supplemental option agreements did not discharge the guarantees on the facts, and no bona fide triable issue or other reason for trial under Order 14 r.3(1) was shown; summary judgment was therefore granted for the Plaintiff.
25 Aug 2025

MOHAMED HANIFF BIN KHATRI ABDULLA 1. ) PARTI PRIBUMI BERSATU MALAYSIA 2. ) TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MAHIADDIN BIN MD YASIN 3. ) DATO' SERI HAMZAH ZAINUDIN 4. ) DATO' MOHAMED SALLEH BAJURI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-497-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-497-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving a contract to pay for the legal services; there was no proven acceptance of any proposal to pay and the credible evidence established services were rendered pro bono, therefore the claim for RM12.5 million fails and is dismissed.
13 Aug 2025

SIM CHENG YOUNG DATUK WIRA RANJEET SINGH SIDHU

Citation

WA-22NCC-863-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-863-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found service was properly effected despite a typographical error corrected by affidavit of correction, the JID was regularly obtained, the JDS did not vary or extinguish the guarantor's independent liability, the Plaintiff's forbearance constituted valid consideration for the Personal Guarantee, and the Defendant disclosed no bona fide triable defence; therefore the application to set aside the JID was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
18 Jul 2025

1. ) KACON ASSET GROUP SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN HAI KEAT 1. ) KACON CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 2. ) CAL-TEST LABORATORY SDN. BHD. 3. ) RAMLI BIN OSMAN 4. ) MOHD HASRULNIZAM BIN ENDRUS 5. ) WANG MIN

Citation

WA-24NCC-212-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-212-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The CSSA was validly performed because the agreed consideration of RM1,000,000 was discharged by the allotment and registration of 5,000 RCPS to the 1st Plaintiff as evidenced by the statutory Return of Allotment and subsequent transfers recorded under s105; therefore the plaintiffs' claims that consideration failed and that the CSSA is void failed. The injunctive reliefs sought were excessively wide, disproportionate and would unduly impede statutory and fiduciary duties and ongoing time‑sensitive projects; consequently the Originating Summons and ancillary discovery application were dismiss…
30 Apr 2025

RAVISANGAR A/L RAMAN M B RAMESH KUMAR A/L BALASUBRAMANIAM

Citation

BL-A52NCvC-53-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A52NCvC-53-06/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

There was a concluded contract for sale at RM270,000 evidenced by the invoice and acceptance of staged payments totaling RM200,000 leaving RM70,000 unpaid; the plaintiff failed to prove any enforceable second agreement because it lacked consideration, certainty and corroborating evidence; accordingly plaintiff's refund claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim for unpaid balance of RM70,000 allowed with interest and costs.
21 Apr 2025

LUA THIANG POH 1. ) KABIR SINGH A/L JAGIR SINGH 2. ) JASMINDER KAUR A/P JASBIR SINGH 3. ) MANJEET SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH 4. ) KAWALJEET KAUR A/P DARSHAN SINGH 5. ) YOKIN RESOURCES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-283-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-283-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Promissory notes were inadmissible and unenforceable because stamping occurred after execution and lacked proper LHDN endorsement; no consideration moved to the individual makers (D1–D4) so the notes are void as against them; the transactions were loans not investments and the plaintiff failed to rebut the s10OA presumption, rendering the agreements void under s15 of the Moneylenders Act 1951; plaintiff also failed the contractual 3‑month notice requirement; claim dismissed and plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.
8 Apr 2025

THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD AIDEAH COMMUNICATION SDN BHD

Citation

02(f)-30-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-30-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2013 Agreement did not create an absolute or unconditional Minimum Guaranteed Sum; they established payment percentages and targets qualified by Clause 4.3's requirement that the plaintiff use reasonable endeavour, therefore the defendant was not entitled to automatic set-off absent proof the plaintiff failed to use reasonable endeavour; burden to prove failure lay on the defendant; Court of Appeal's decision in favour of the plaintiff is affirmed.
28 Mar 2025

1. ) CHEN YI JIN 2. ) SEE WEE SIAH 3. ) WANG FUCHENG 1. ) NEO SIN SING 2. ) TEE NAI POH PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) POWER MINING SDN BHD 2. ) CHEW SONG HENG 3. ) HO CHAK HUNG

Citation

JA-22NCvC-114-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-114-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The loan agreement created a joint and several undertaking by the guarantors enforceable up to the actual sum paid (RM3,000,000); the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and severally for the plaintiffs' respective shares with interest; the fact that certain guarantors were not named in the main suit did not extinguish their liabilities because the obligation was joint and several and the claim was a liquidated demand; counter-claims against D4 and D5 were allowed to the extent of RM750,000 each (and related indemnities and costs) while the counter-…
28 Feb 2025

LOW CHEE GROUP SDN. BHD. 1. ) WONG KIT LEONG 2. ) MONTEIRO GERARD CLAIR 3. ) RAYMOND TAN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1405-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1405-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The LOU, being an express irrevocable and unconditional undertaking signed by the defendants in their personal capacities, created a valid and binding contractual obligation to procure redemption and discharge of the property; defendants breached those obligations and are estopped from denying personal liability, entitling the plaintiff to mandatory relief, costs and assessment of damages.
10 Feb 2025

Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow 1. ) Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 2. ) RAUB MINING & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SDN BHD 3. ) RAUB OIL MILL SDN BHD 4. ) WAHBUNGA REALTY SDN BHD 5. ) YUM SDN BHD 6. ) BERJAYA REALTY SDN BHD 7. ) GRANDFOODS SDN BHD 8. ) L

Citation

WA-22NCC-352-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-352-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 16.1.2017 document is a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; the defendant is estopped from denying its legality; however the operative term 'entire interest' is limited to the defendant's direct, personal shares in RMDC (7 shares) and excludes indirect interests held through corporate shareholders which cannot be dealt with by the defendant alone; accordingly declarations as to 50% of the defendant's 'entire interest' are enforceable only to the extent of his direct shares and specific performance as pleaded is disallowed to the extent it would affect c…