Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable estoppel

Legal area

Court

13 May 2025

CASA VENICIA JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY 1. ) IDEAL HEIGHTS PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak

Citation

BA-22NCvC-81-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-81-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The joint management body had standing under s.143(2) to bring representative proceedings; the contractual SPAs and Supplementary Agreement excluded the Clubhouse from common property so the Clubhouse title validly remained with the Developer and the Plaintiff failed to prove fraud vitiating registration at the land office; however, due to delay in formation of the management corporation the Court ordered that the Plaintiff be reflected as registered proprietor of all subdivided titles other than the Clubhouse until the management corporation is formed and granted an injunction based on equit…
7 Feb 2025

NESTCITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. (Terdahulunya dikenali sebagai ‘NESTCON HOLDINGS SDN. BHD.’) [selaku Wakil kepada Pemilik Tanah, Ching Teck Kee (No. Kad Pengenalan: 360719-71-5015) Menurut Surat Kuasa Wakil bertarikh 23.5.2016 1. ) PENGHUNI-PEN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2111-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2111-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary possession under Order 89 because the occupiers at best held non‑registrable licences or unprotected equities arising from purchases of undivided shares; such rights do not bind the registered proprietor who holds indefeasible title under the National Land Code, and there were no triable issues requiring a plenary trial.
7 Jan 2025

CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. 1. ) Teh Swee Neo 2. ) Lee Yong Hen

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-649-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-649-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s finding that the 2nd Defendant was liable for the 1st Defendant’s unpaid rent because the plaintiffs failed to prove the exceptional circumstances required to pierce one company’s veil and impose liability on another (actual fraud or equitable/constructive fraud). The High Court erred in disregarding the defendants’ lawful right to arrange corporate affairs, in failing to apply ss 91 and 92 Evidence Act to the entire agreement and bilateral variation clauses, and in improperly relying on s 115/estoppel and mere control or interest…
2 Oct 2024

1. ) Liew Yoke Chuan 2. ) KHOO CHOONG HIANG 3. ) LIEW WONG 4. ) LEE YOON LOI 5. ) CHONG KIN KHEONG 6. ) Tan Yeong Seng Dan Low See Yan 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kinta 2. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH & GALIAN NEGE

Citation

AA-25-13-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-13-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Alienation of the lands to PKNP in 2013 was lawful; the Applicants’ challenge to the alienation is time-barred because their cause of action accrued in 2013; the Applicants, as squatters, have no lawful basis to remain on the lands post-alienation; although the Section 425 notices were issued without affording procedural opportunities and thus were found procedurally defective, the Applicants are not entitled to relief and the application is dismissed.
5 Feb 2024

TACON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ANG CHIN SIONG 2. ) ANG KIAN SIA 3. ) OOI PENG LENG 4. ) TEE CHOON MENG 5. ) ANG SOON KIAT 6. ) TE BAN YEK 7. ) BERSATU WIRE MESH TRADING SDN BHD 8. ) BERSATU WIRE MESH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 9. ) TETUAN ALAN TAN

Citation

JB-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim is barred and must be struck out because the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of three prior civil actions (including a consent judgment and summary judgment) operate to preclude relitigation under the doctrines of judicial admission, res judicata (estoppel per rem judicatum), issue estoppel, equitable estoppel, collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel; consequently no trial is warranted.
5 Feb 2024

TACON DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ANG CHIN SIONG 2. ) ANG KIAN SIA 3. ) OOI PENG LENG 4. ) TEE CHOON MENG 5. ) ANG SOON KIAT 6. ) TE BAN YEK 7. ) BERSATU WIRE MESH TRADING SDN BHD 8. ) BERSATU WIRE MESH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 9. ) TETUAN ALAN TAN

Citation

JB-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCC-6-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff’s claim was struck out because the Settlement Agreement, consent judgment and subsequent judgments operated to estop the Plaintiff from relitigating the issues; multiple estoppel doctrines (issue estoppel, res judicata/estoppel per rem judicatum, equitable estoppel, collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel) apply on the facts, and therefore no trial was warranted; the 9th and 10th Defendants’ involvement in preparing the Settlement Agreement does not lift those bars.
16 Jan 2023

1. ) Eco Hijau Semula Sdn Bhd 2. ) Greenbio Technology Sdn Bhd Mohd Najeib Bin Ahmad Walat (berniaga sebagai Pemilik Tunggal di bawah nama dan gaya 'Triple A Aura Resources')

Citation

BA-22C-17-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-17-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The four Letters of Award dated 7.11.2019 constituted binding agreements accepted by the Plaintiffs through unequivocal conduct (performance, procurement, attendance, invoices, progress reports); the Defendant was estopped from denying the contracts; the Defendant's termination letters were unlawful and constituted breaches on 5.1.2020; damages under s 74(1) Contracts Act 1950 are recoverable — the value of works was recoverable as arising in the usual course, and loss of profit was foreseeable and recoverable — therefore the Defendant must pay the specified sums, interest and costs.
8 Apr 2021

GIGA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 206741-A) HERCULES STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1003239-U)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-140-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-140-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in applying the 1.5% per month interest contained only in progress claims because those terms were not incorporated into the written letter of award; parol evidence cannot be used to vary the written contract; equitable estoppel did not operate to import the invoice term; accordingly interest is awarded at the statutory/default rate of 5% per annum from 1.1.2015 to 8.3.2021 on the specified sums, while the claim for RM2,289.18 for nuts and bolts is upheld as supported by contemporaneous documents.
23 Mar 2021

MKP BUILDERS SDN. BHD. PC GEOTECHNIC SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24C-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PCG's preliminary objection was dismissed for non-compliance with Bar Council Ruling 11.04 but the originating summons by MKP seeking a stay of enforcement was dismissed: once the High Court has granted enforcement under s28 CIPAA it will not ordinarily grant a stay under s16(1)(b) thereafter; in any event MKP was barred by issue estoppel for failing to raise the stay earlier and by equitable estoppel given its prior conduct and affidavits; MKP failed to discharge the onus to show grounds under View Esteem (no clear and unequivocal error and no real risk of PCG insolvency); MKP also failed to…
22 Mar 2021

VIRTUAL NETWORK SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 1140670-D) AXISJAYA SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 656023-H)

Citation

BA-22C-33-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-33-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the defendant to discontinue the counterclaim and granted liberty to file afresh because there was no prejudice or advantage to the plaintiff from discontinuance, the merits had not been tried and trial had not commenced, the plaintiff did not oppose discontinuance, committal intentions were irrelevant to the discontinuance decision, and the plaintiff failed to satisfy the burden to show exceptional grounds to refuse liberty; costs were awarded to the plaintiff in a proportionate sum of RM8,000 with 5% p.a. interest from 22.3.2021.