Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit forfeiture

Legal area

Court

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.
28 Jan 2026

NAJD AL-ATHEER TRADING CO BIOMAX RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-232-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-232-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff repudiated the contract for the remaining three containers; contemporaneous documents show actual deposit received was USD55,246.95; Plaintiff failed to prove defects or losses due to lack of independent inspection, expert evidence and corroborative documentary proof; the deposit (less than 10% of the remaining shipments) is reasonable and therefore forfeitable; consequence: Plaintiff's claim dismissed, Defendant's counterclaim allowed.
10 Sept 2025

XIAO QIANG HOLIDAYS SDN. BHD. BETELNUT MOBILE SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-22NCvC-57-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-57-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the defendant did not have authority or mandate from the true owner (LADA) to lease or sublet the premises and made false representations to the plaintiff, the Management Agreement dated 7.6.2023 was void and unenforceable; therefore the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of the RM30,000 deposit and to recover proven renovation costs of RM440,914.96; plaintiff failed to prove general damages and defendant's counterclaim was dismissed; interest at 5% and costs awarded as ordered.
12 Aug 2025

MALAYAN ENERGISTIK SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 1. ) SAMUDERA WIBAWA HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) YANG XIAOWEN 3. ) CHI YEW LAN 4. ) LIM CHEE YONG 5. ) YANG JINFU

Citation

WA-27NCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or conspiracy because expert evidence and joint findings established inadequate sand thickness and unsuitable sediment composition (0.6m with high fine silt/clay) as the cause of failure; no evidence of dishonesty or overt acts by directors; no contractual obligation on SWSB to guarantee sand suitability; accordingly claims dismissed and SWSB entitled to payment for works rendered under the New Contract (RM517,333.28) with interest and costs; in Suit 2 both claims and counterclaims dismissed and each party bears own costs.
20 Mar 2025

POSITIVE PROSPECT SDN BHD KOPERASI KEMAS NEGERI SEMBILAN BERHAD

Citation

NA-A52NCvC-86-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A52NCvC-86-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the defendant made clear, unqualified admissions in the Consent Judgment and letter which, under Order 27 r.3, entitled the plaintiff to judgment without a full trial; additionally the defendant's counterclaim contradicted the Consent Judgment, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process under Order 18 r.19, thus it was struck out; costs awarded to plaintiff.
13 Dec 2024

AL MULTAZAM TRAVEL & TOURS SDN BHD RHINOAIRIEL TRAVEL & TOURS SDN BHD

Citation

AA-A72-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff discharged the burden of proof by adducing contemporaneous documentary evidence and witness testimony showing the bus was returned and that the purchase could not be completed due to the director's death; Defendant failed to prove entitlement to forfeit the deposit or to substantiate its counterclaim for instalments, lost profits or repair costs. Therefore Plaintiff is entitled to recover RM62,000 (RM100,000 less RM38,000) plus interest as claimed; Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed for lack of evidence.
12 Dec 2024

LANGSAT MARINE TERMINAL SDN. BHD. NKGBS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCvC-101-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-101-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to prove frustration or force majeure; no evidence pandemic rendered performance impossible and defendant's difficulties were financial and pre‑existing; misrepresentation claim failed because lease was on 'as is where is' basis and tenant responsible for approvals; the agreement constituted a tenancy for a fixed initial term with renewal options and did not contravene the National Land Code; accordingly plaintiff entitled to outstanding rent, contractual late payment penalty, forfeiture of deposit and liquidated damages equal to 12 months' rent; defendant's counterclaims dis…
28 Oct 2024

JINGSHI HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY (sebuah firma)

Citation

WA-22NCC-277-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-277-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the RM1,000,000 was a non-refundable deposit forming part of a concluded agreement to purchase 19,500,000 FCG shares for RM10,000,000; contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and the 30.9.2021 letter corroborated the defendant's account and the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral undertaking or entitlement to restitution, therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the deposit forfeited.
15 May 2024

1. ) FRANCIS XAVIER NATHAN 2. ) THABONITHI DEVI A/P M C REGUPATHY 1. ) CHA TI @ CHEAH TAI 2. ) CHEAH PEI CHIH

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-86-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-86-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the condition precedent was satisfied and the Bank did not receive the Letter of Awareness Cum Indemnity from the purchasers' solicitors; therefore the purchasers had no valid basis to terminate under clause 14 and the Magistrate misappreciated the facts and law — appeal allowed and deposit not recoverable by purchasers.
12 Jul 2023

1. ) OW FOOK LIN 2. ) OW YOKE CHAN 3. ) OW HWEE SAN Boon Wee Peng

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-4-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was a concluded contract by objective evidence of offer, acceptance and consideration despite the SPA remaining unsigned; the RM180,000 paid constituted a deposit/earnest money which served as security for performance and was properly forfeited when the plaintiffs failed to complete; trial judge's factual findings were not disturbed on appeal.