Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contingent contracts

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2024

DELMA TRADING 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan 2. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan

Citation

DA-21NCvC-17-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-17-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 23.09.2007 approval letter together with payment created a contingent contract which required issuance of a licence; because the licence was not issued the contract could not be enforced and there was no repudiation by the second defendant. However the second defendant made negligent misrepresentations by issuing approval without verifying the highland freeze boundary, thereby inducing the plaintiff to incur preparatory expenses; defendants are liable for those losses and for general damages for inconvenience; first defendant vicariously liable for the agency's conduct.
13 Mar 2023

REGALIA ENTITY SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEMBAGA AMANAH YAYASAN SARAWAK 2. ) SETIAUSAHA KEWANGAN NEGERI SARAWAK

Citation

WA-22NCvC-800-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-800-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The JVA was a contingent contract subject to specified conditions precedent; the Plaintiff failed to fulfil clause 3.1(e) (obtain and pay for Development Order) within the stipulated time despite extensions and time was of the essence under the JVA; under clause 3.4 and s36 Contracts Act the JVA terminated and became void, entitling Defendants to succeed on their counterclaim and precluding Plaintiff from specific performance, damages or share of acquisition compensation.
3 May 2021

VENICE GOLDMARK SDN BHD KEVIN SATHIASEELAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN & 2 OTHERS

Citation

wa-22ncvc-366-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

wa-22ncvc-366-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the misrepresentation claim failed because the Defendants did not introduce or represent Kenneth's financing capability and Plaintiff had prior dealings with Kenneth; however the Defendants breached their stakeholder duties by releasing USD 350,000 contrary to the contractual conditions because the RM40,000,000 contingency was not fulfilled and the forfeiture under clause 7 did not apply given the court's finding that time was not of the essence and the memorandum was executed, entitling Plaintiff to return of USD 350,000 and costs.
25 Oct 2020

1. CHEVRON MALAYSIA LIMITED 2. PEN PETROLEUM SDN BHD MOHD SATAR BIN DOLLAH

Citation

DA-22NCVC-23-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-23-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found there were serious questions to be tried but concluded the Fuel Supply Agreement was exhibited as executed, the land was restricted for petrol station use so condition as to land use was satisfied, and clause 9(a)(iv) of the LA expressly permitted termination. Given the LA permits termination and plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate, the balance of convenience favored allowing the defendant to exercise the contractual termination right; therefore the interlocutory injunction was discharged.

Malaysia Case Law

DELMA TRADING 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan 2. ) Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Kelantan

REGALIA ENTITY SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEMBAGA AMANAH YAYASAN SARAWAK 2. ) SETIAUSAHA KEWANGAN NEGERI SARAWAK

VENICE GOLDMARK SDN BHD KEVIN SATHIASEELAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN & 2 OTHERS

1. CHEVRON MALAYSIA LIMITED 2. PEN PETROLEUM SDN BHD MOHD SATAR BIN DOLLAH