Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to mitigate

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

KAMARULNIZAM BIN AZIZ 1. ) MOHD JEFREE BIN MAT DAUD 2. ) SYARIKAT PENGANGKUTAN S.P.Y. SDN.BHD 3. ) RIZAL NISHAM BIN RAMLI 4. ) TCS TRANSPORT AGENCY (M) SDN.BHD

Citation

CA-A53KJ-11-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-A53KJ-11-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the physical evidence (tyre marks and post‑accident vehicle positions), credible eyewitness SD2 and inconsistencies in investigative hearsay established that defendants 1 and 2 negligently caused the collision by encroaching into the plaintiff's lane; the court rejected a 50:50 split and held defendants 1 & 2 100% liable. The court applied established principles on assessing conflicting versions, required specific proof for special damages but allowed awards where evidence or common sense justified nominal or quantified sums, ordered specified awards for specia…
25 Feb 2025

HASILHARTA (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) IDEAL ADVANTAGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) Vast Diversified Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-681-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-681-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims for legal fees (RM25,000 and RM80,000) and claimed loss of profits (RM1,400,000) were dismissed for lack of admissible and compelling evidence and because the Federal Court has held that legal fees are governed by the costs regime and are not generally recoverable as damages; court awarded only the costs for this assessment to plaintiff in the sum of RM5,000 and ordered interest at 5% per annum from date of this judgment to actual realisation.
4 Jul 2023

Long Kee Piling Works Sdn Bhd Chang Kian Chiang

Citation

JA-24NCvC-974-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-974-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying s.329 NLC and authorities (notably Lim Tee Hin and Lo Foi), the court found the plaintiff proved special losses by documentary evidence and that those losses were a reasonably foreseeable and direct consequence of the wrongful caveat; accordingly the court affirmed special damages of RM114,786.44 and awarded RM50,000 as general damages. The appeal against quantum was dismissed.
7 Feb 2023

PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) ROSLAND BIN OTHMAN 2. ) ROSLI BIN HAMAT 3. ) DATO' DR. IR. MOHD ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-22NCC-177-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-177-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Investment Agreement, Put Option Agreement and Guarantees valid and enforceable; the defendants breached their payment obligations; there were no triable issues on the 3rd Defendant’s duty-to-sell allegation because trading was suspended and the sale was discretionary under the guarantee clause; accordingly summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against all defendants and the 3rd Defendant’s counterclaim was struck out.
6 Jan 2023

1. ) Good Quantum Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Datuk Chang Kok Chuang 3. ) Right Development Activities Sdn. Bhd. Alliance Investment Bank Berhad

Citation

WA-28PW-277-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-277-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held (i) the Court of Appeal did not find AIBB responsible for the Securities Commission's rejection and evidence of losses arising from that rejection is excluded from assessment; (ii) the phrase 'general damages' in the pleadings and Grounds of Judgment in the present case covers both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses so evidence on both is admissible; and (iii) because the Liability Judgment ordering assessment of damages for breach of the collateral contract and for illegal/wrongful and negligent sale remains operative, the Assessing Party may adduce evidence in support of thos…
27 Nov 2019

KEMAJUAN MASTERON SDN BHD CHONG NGE WEI & 6 LAGI

Citation

B-03(IM)-19-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-03(IM)-19-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the SAR and High Court assessment because clause 12 did not dispense with the respondents’ burden to prove actual loss; the sole contractor quotation was inadequate evidence (no acceptance, no proof works done, validity lapsed, no detail of original materials or itemised costs) and therefore the awarded RM380,500 lacked legal basis; respondents failed to discharge proof of quantum and no damages were awarded.

Malaysia Case Law

KAMARULNIZAM BIN AZIZ 1. ) MOHD JEFREE BIN MAT DAUD 2. ) SYARIKAT PENGANGKUTAN S.P.Y. SDN.BHD 3. ) RIZAL NISHAM BIN RAMLI 4. ) TCS TRANSPORT AGENCY (M) SDN.BHD

HASILHARTA (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) IDEAL ADVANTAGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) Vast Diversified Sdn. Bhd.

Long Kee Piling Works Sdn Bhd Chang Kian Chiang

PERBADANAN NASIONAL BERHAD 1. ) ROSLAND BIN OTHMAN 2. ) ROSLI BIN HAMAT 3. ) DATO' DR. IR. MOHD ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDULLAH

1. ) Good Quantum Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Datuk Chang Kok Chuang 3. ) Right Development Activities Sdn. Bhd. Alliance Investment Bank Berhad

KEMAJUAN MASTERON SDN BHD CHONG NGE WEI & 6 LAGI