Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract variation

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2025

THE GREAT FUMA GROUP SDN BHD HAINAN HENGDE IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE CO., LTD.

Citation

BA-12B-50-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-50-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is allowed because the trial judge was plainly wrong to treat absence of an export permit (AP) as a fundamental term when the written Sale Agreement did not make AP a condition precedent; alleged variations were not pleaded and parol evidence cannot be used to vary the written contract. Plaintiff's unilateral termination was premature; plaintiff breached payment obligations and defendant was entitled to damages, release of trust funds and interest.
11 Sept 2025

TOSHIBA Elevator (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd TANJUNG TERAS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-33-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found Plaintiff completed the contracted works and proved variation works of RM53,432.00; Defendant failed to prove any agreement by Plaintiff to reduce the contract price and Defendant's 2018 acknowledgment revived the limitation period; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid balance of RM178,963.70 and the claim was not time-barred.
14 Nov 2024

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD EMRAIL SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-195-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-195-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to show a triable issue: the unpaid sum under Supplemental Agreement No.4 was admitted, the defendant's emailed repayment proposals were unaccepted and amounted to mere proposals not replacing the Agreement, silence did not constitute acceptance, and frustration/Section 57(2) cannot excuse payment obligations that defaulted before COVID-19; therefore summary judgment was properly granted for the undisputed sum with costs.
6 Nov 2024

1. ) Loo An Swee 2. ) Mok Kim Leng 1. ) Pang Kim Chon 2. ) Loo Bon Lan

Citation

BA-22NCvC-318-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-318-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to discharge the legal burden of proving actionable misrepresentation; contemporaneous written confirmations and the SPA terms demonstrate payment and compliance, oral assertions cannot vary the written agreement, therefore the claim is dismissed.
13 Feb 2023

MYGLAM SDN BHD MALAYSIAN TIMBER COUNCIL

Citation

WA-12BC-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-2-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal: the respondent's and/or its consultant's acts (imposition of additional standards, changes to design and procedures, failure to give timely instructions) prevented completion and set time at large; the respondent failed to comply with contractual termination procedures and thus termination was wrongful; respondent was not entitled to claimed refunds, expenses or liquidated damages; appellant's counterclaim allowed in part with damages for wrongful termination to be assessed by the Sessions Court.
29 Aug 2022

YOU CONSTRUCTION WORKS SDN BHD RAJESWARAN PARAMJOTHY

Citation

AA-A52NCvC-76-07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A52NCvC-76-07/2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that Plaintiff completed the works as certified by the architect appointed by Defendant, Defendant failed to give timely or corroborated notice of defects within the defect liability period and did not dispute the sum owing, therefore Defendant breached the contract and is liable to pay the outstanding sum of RM124,615.25 together with costs and statutory interest.
25 May 2022

1. ) 555 FILM SDN BHD 2. ) BIG FOOT ENTERTAINMENT SDN BHD 3. ) LAM PUI YEE 4. ) CHIN LEKEN ADAMANCY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-28-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the exchanges between the parties (requests for variation, the defendant's confirmation of variation and subsequent emails) validly varied the Agreement such that the Completion Period ended 30 September 2021, the Repayment Period commenced 1 October 2021, and the Final Investment Sum was no longer required; therefore the condition for termination under clause 9.1 (non-payment of the Final Investment Sum) was not met, rendering the Notice of Termination invalid and entitling the defendant's counterclaim.
16 Jul 2021

LEE SIWEE BU FAIRVIEW INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL SUBANG SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-9572-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-9572-09/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The transfer letter issued by the defendant constituted a binding variation/decision under the contract (per Clause 5.6) that offered parents the option to withdraw; the plaintiff validly exercised the withdrawal option and served the withdrawal notice in accordance with that letter and the defendant failed to notify non-acceptance, therefore the defendant must refund the security deposit to the plaintiff.
21 Apr 2021

1. ) YOONG KHIONG SHIN 2. ) YOONG KIAN SIN 3. ) YOONG AH KEW @ YOONG SIM SIN GINDERPAL SINGH A/L HARNEK SINGH

Citation

NA-22NCVC-86-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-22NCVC-86-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they suffered damage or loss as a result of the defendant's caveats; plaintiffs had knowledge of the caveats and did not take steps to remove them; the claim was time-barred by the six-year limitation period and was effectively precluded by earlier proceedings; accordingly the claim is dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for legal expenses is allowed in part (RM35,000).
20 Sept 2019

TNO PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD OREN VENTURE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-49-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-49-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to establish any bona fide triable issue: the Supplemental LOA was shown to be for loan facilitation and did not displace the original contract sum; the Plaintiff produced certified progress payment certificates and evidence of approvals and payments by SME Bank and the Architect/Consultant; insurance requirement was met; alleged failure to provide separate invoices did not constitute a triable defence. Accordingly summary judgment was proper for the unpaid certified sum less the conceded retention.