Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim/set-off

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2025

CARGOTEC TERMINAL SOLUTIONS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD WESTERN LOGISTICS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-B52NCvC-100-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-B52NCvC-100-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found plaintiff proved performance and entitlement to the unpaid invoices under the three contracts and for out‑of‑scope works; defendant failed to produce contemporaneous documentary or independent evidence to prove breach or to substantiate the counterclaim for hire costs; defendant's belated objections to invoices were estopped. Plaintiff awarded RM325,487.20 with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
2 Sept 2024

1. ) Muhammad Syazwan Hakim bin Khairul Azmi 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Roslina binti Ghazali 1. ) Rohana binti Ibrahim 2. ) Anuar bin Abdullah

Citation

DA-A53KJ-442-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A53KJ-442-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities, plaintiffs' version was more credible, defendant failed to give evidence, and photographic and police report evidence supported plaintiffs; therefore Defendant 1 is 100% liable and plaintiffs' claims succeed to the quantified amounts; defendant's counterclaim failed for lack of proof.
11 Mar 2024

LATEX FORM SDN BHD GX CORPORATION SDN BHD

Citation

BL-22NCvC-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Plaintiff proved entitlement to payment for works supported by letters of award, purchase orders and invoices for the GX3 Pilot Line (no dispute from Defendant on those documents) and Plaintiff performed the contracted works; photographs offered by Defendant were inadmissible as they lacked proper provenance and witness knowledge; Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim because it did not establish causation, actual losses or quantum and relied on remote/speculative figures and unpleaded oral terms. Accordingly Plaintiff's claim succeeded and…
18 Feb 2024

1. ) LIM YEW CHEE 2. ) LAU CHECK HONG 3. ) LAW WEI SHIN 1. ) NASTEK BINA SDN. BHD. 2. ) ALLIANCE PACIFIC INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any meritorious defence or triable issue: they did not pay the agreed RM600,000 within the contractual period thereby forfeiting redemption rights to Plot 27; alleged overpayment must be pursued by counterclaim and did not render relief immature; consequently summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate and plaintiffs are entitled to orders for delivery of title documents and Form 14A (and attendant registration remedies).
8 Jun 2023

PUNCAK GENERASI (M) SDN. BHD. ADASFA SDN. BHD.

Citation

CA-A72NCC-164-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCC-164-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On balance of probabilities the court found the VSD failure occurred after the contractual warranty expired and no complaint was made during the warranty period; defendant's continued use constituted acceptance under s.42 Sale of Goods Act 1957, therefore plaintiff was not liable for the defect and was entitled to the outstanding purchase price while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
21 Oct 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. ) DATUK SERI MAGLIN DENNIS DCRUZ 2. ) DATUK SUBRAYAN A/L SELLAPPAN 3. ) DATO DR LOGA BALA MOHAN A/L JAGANATHAN 4. ) DATO ELAYPPEN A/L MUTHUSAMY 5. ) DATUK MOHAN A/L A KANDASAMY 6. ) DATUK TIONG YAP CHOON 7. ) SATHIA

Citation

WA-29NCC-760-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-760-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

At the time the bankruptcy notices were issued (23.6.2022) the sealed judgment of 30.3.2022 was final for purposes of s3(1)(i) IA because no stay or effort to set aside had been filed; the debtors failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of s3(1)(i) and s3(2)(ii) IA and rule 93 IR (including filing a quantified affidavit within seven days), and because the liability was joint and several the creditors were entitled to issue separate bankruptcy notices against each debtor for the full judgment sum; accordingly the applications to set aside the notices were dismissed.
2 Sept 2022

SK Piles Sdn. Bhd. Advanced Pile Injection Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

PB-A52NCvC-79-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-A52NCvC-79-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The amendment (content 23) is permitted because it is bona fide, does not prejudice the other party nor change the character of the suit and arises from the same transaction; any prejudice is compensable by costs. Accordingly the defendant may amend the statement of defence to include the proposed counterclaim, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
2 Aug 2022

PEMPETISYEN NASAR DEVELOPMENT GROUP HOLDING SDN BHD MIDD CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-37-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the respondent demonstrated a bona fide dispute as to the sums claimed by showing overlapping issues and a pending writ action and counterclaim addressing the same matters (delay, LAD, back-to-back contract) and because the adjudication decision was not finally immune from challenge while related court proceedings under CIPAA were pending, the winding up petition was dismissed.
11 Mar 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Chai Ko Thing and Jolyn Ch’ng Wi Fern for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Lee Ong & Partners (Petaling Jaya)] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Tan Chun Ming and Fong Peng Huei for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs J

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO.: WA-29NCC-2174-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the substituted service applications were valid despite references to the Bankruptcy Rules 1969, adequate attempts at personal service were proved, the underlying default judgment was final and enforceable until set aside, the liquidated sums stated met the statutory threshold for bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor failed to give timely notice of any counterclaim or set-off and thus committed an act of bankruptcy, and the delay in filing to set aside was excused by pandemic-related restrictions.