Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

1. ) MZ MULTITRADE SDN BHD 2. ) Mohaideen Haroon Syed Ibrahim 3. ) Wahitha Banu GARDEN FLORA EXPORTS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-440-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the Plaintiffs failed to prove the Agreements were sham or procured by coercion; the Agreements were valid and enforceable, the Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs, the Defendant's counterclaims against MZ Polymers and MZ Multitrade and Banu allowed with costs, and judgment on the RM5,200,000 claim was limited to RM3,200,000 as per the MZ Multitrade Agreement.
23 Feb 2026

MTRUSTEE BERHAD (Sebagai pemegang amanah Hektar Real Estate Investment Trust) OO YIN YING (berniaga di bawah gaya dan nama sebagai SUNRISE GARDEN CENTRE (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan 201403177909 (PG0347449-W)

Citation

KF-A72NCvC-38-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KF-A72NCvC-38-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff’s claims based on facts or arrears arising after 31/3/2019 were struck out because those facts were not pleaded in the statement of claim and could not be raised by reply; accordingly Plaintiff’s claims dismissed. Defendant’s counterclaim for return of deposits succeeded because the written leases ended 31/3/2019 and deposits totalling RM13,000 were payable back to Defendant. Defendant’s claims for damages for seized machines failed for lack of proof of loss and because no claim for return of the goods was pursued.
12 Feb 2026

1. ) BEVERLY DENTISTREE SDN BHD 2. ) NATASHA BEVERLY DENTAL SDN BHD ARLENA PHILIP LEE PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) BEVERLY DENTISTREE SDN BHD 2. ) NATASHA BEVERLY DENTAL SDN BHD 3. ) NATASHA BEVERLY SDN BHD 4. ) Francis Ng Tian Sang 5. ) Howard Ng H

Citation

WA-22NCC-286-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-286-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned amendments were filed before pleadings closed in compliance with Order 20 r.3, were bona fide clarifications anchored to the original cause of action, did not change the character of the suit nor withdraw admissions, and caused no irremediable prejudice; therefore the applicant failed to show that leave under r.5 would inevitably have been refused and the application under r.4 was dismissed.
7 Jan 2026

1. ) TAN SRI DATO' SRI MUHAMMAD SHAFEE BIN MD ABDULLAH 2. ) TANIA SCIVETTI 3. ) LUNAR DOLLARS SDN. BHD. 1. ) Saerah Binti Saad Lobb 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-22NCvC-521-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-521-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Majority of proposed amendments allowed because they did not alter the nature of the 1st Defendant's defence; specific new allegations, paragraphs and prayers that would change the substratum of the counterclaim or were not previously pleaded were disallowed; amended pleadings to be filed immediately and reply permitted; costs of RM3,000 ordered against the 1st Defendant.
5 Jan 2026

Chandra Sekar 1. ) Sunthar A/L Peria Thamby 2. ) Nisham Electrical & Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-221-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to refuse joinder because the pleaded allegations against the proposed defendant lacked sufficient particularity and clarity at the interlocutory stage, there was significant potential prejudice to a private individual who appears more properly called as a witness, and limitation issues could not be conclusively resolved interlocutorily; accordingly joinder was not justifiable and was refused with costs.
18 Dec 2025

ALM TRADING SDN BHD CS NAM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court: the plaintiff's contemporaneous documentary evidence together with signed letters and part payments constituted acknowledgements under s.26(2) Limitation Act 1953, rendering the action not time-barred; the defendant's denials were unsubstantiated and its counterclaim lacked contractual basis and evidential support, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
26 Nov 2025

PALM STAR SDN BHD Lembaga Pembangunan Langkawi

Citation

KA-22NCvC-17-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-17-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities; the proposed new lease and sale documents were unfinalised drafts and not binding contracts; Defendant's termination and refund (less agreed penalty) were reasonable given Plaintiff's failure to finalise despite extensions; Defendant's counterclaim is allowed and Plaintiff liable for damages and costs to be assessed.
25 Nov 2025

SAIFUL SAFWAN BIN MOHAMED GHAZI 1. ) GOH ENG SHERN 2. ) ONG ENG FEI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-179-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-179-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiff and his solicitors failed to appear and did not adduce evidence or file witness statements, the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof; the defendants' evidence remained unrebutted and accepted; accordingly the plaintiff's claims were dismissed and the defendants' unchallenged counterclaim for RM569,535 was allowed with costs.
19 Nov 2025

COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN BHD NADAYU PROPERTIES BERHAD

Citation

BA-22C-25-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-25-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found no triable issues: the Plaintiff admitted receipt of the RM6,000,000 advance and the contract terms obligated repayment; the Plaintiff's set‑off case lacked sufficient legal basis to defeat summary judgment; the Defendant rebutted the presumption of being an unlicensed moneylender by evidencing a non‑moneylending relationship, absence of system/continuity of lending, no advertising as a moneylender and non‑exorbitant profit; accordingly summary judgment on the Defendant's Counterclaim was allowed with costs but execution was stayed pending disposal of the Plaintiff's substanti…
10 Nov 2025

MELBOURNE SUNRISE SDN BHD HOW NAM HUI PENCELAH CHONG VOON KEONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A counterclaim that seeks recovery of legal fees as damages without any contractual, statutory or indemnity basis does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and is legally unsustainable because costs are recoverable only under the costs regime; accordingly the counterclaim is struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a) ROC.