Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time (eot)

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM YOKE KEE 2. ) CHAN SOO CHEE PREMA BONANZA SDN. BHD. PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) PENGAWAL KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 4. ) KHAIRUL AZHAR (NIK)

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Order 14A application allowed: the 54-month EOT was valid and existed prior to the SPA and was incorporated into the SPA; cause of action for LAD accrued on breach at execution of SPA so the six-year limitation expired before plaintiffs sued; challenge to EOT is an administrative law matter requiring judicial review and cannot be collateralized in this civil suit; LAD is to be computed from SPA date and stops at issuance of vacant possession notice; plaintiffs' claim was time-barred and premature, justifying dismissal under Order 14A.
8 Dec 2025

1. ) TAN KIM WENG 2. ) SUBASH A/L ELANGOVAN 3. ) ELANGOVAN A/L SUBBIAH 4. ) LIM CHIN HENG 5. ) TAN SIEW HOON 6. ) TAN TENG SENG 7. ) LUM WAN TING MRCB SEPUTEH LAND SDN. BHD. (SEBELUM INI DIKENALI SEBAGAI GAPURNA LAND SDN. BHD.)

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-424-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-424-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the pleadings and authorities the Plaintiffs' LAD claims are plainly unsustainable: Obata‑Ambak upholds the 48‑month SPA term and prospective effect of Ang Ming Lee; valid EOTs mean no contractual delay; where no delay PJD Regency does not apply; some claims are statute‑barred as pleaded causes arose over six years before filing; Plaintiffs 2–7 lack standing absent prior written consent under their Deeds of Assignment; overall the claims amount to abuse of process and are accordingly struck out under O.18 r.19(1).
3 Dec 2025

1. ) CHONG NGIT SOOI 2. ) HO PEAK HWA 3. ) YEE CHUNG TUCK 4. ) YEE YING YING 5. ) TAY JEAN SEAN 6. ) TAY CHOON HOW 7. ) PANG JIAN YONG 8. ) PANG TSE FUI 9. ) TAN HOON THEAN 10. ) TAN NING PEI 11. ) SOW TIAP 12. ) TAN NING XIN KAISAR MAXIM S

Citation

BA-12ANCvC-39-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCvC-39-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The extension of time dated 2 August 2017 was invalid because it was granted after Regulation 11(3) of the HDR had been declared ultra vires on 15 June 2017 and therefore there was no lawful enabling authority to extend the Schedule H 36‑month completion period; accordingly the developer remained bound by the 36‑month period, the Plaintiffs’ LAD claim was legally sustainable, the Sessions Court erred in allowing the Defendant’s Order 14A application, and summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered for the Plaintiffs.
7 Jul 2025

MAJLIS BANDARAYA PULAU PINANG Sagamuda Civil Sdn Bhd

Citation

P-01(C)(W)-247-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

P-01(C)(W)-247-04/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred: the 2nd termination was valid because it was exercised under the parties' conditional reinstatement agreement which expressly allowed termination at any time; the CRA was not an EOT under the COC and did not set time at large; the respondent is estopped from treating the CRA as an EOT given its conduct and reapplication for EOTs; the respondent failed to dispute the Final Account within the contractual three‑month period so the Final Account is binding; consequently the AD is to be set aside and the employer’s claims (including LAD) are uph…
26 Jun 2025

IMAGE FACADE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-22C-63-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-63-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendant breached the contract in a way that entitled Plaintiff to terminate; Defendant validly terminated under Clause 51 for contractor default, the Certificate of Termination Costs issued under Clause 56 was properly made and binding, and Defendant is entitled to recover net completion costs and losses amounting to RM25,277,397.53 together with interest and costs; Plaintiff is not entitled to the progress payment, retention sum or claimed 15% contract loss.
10 Jun 2025

EKOVEST CAPITAL SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI PROMPT CAPITAL SDN. BHD.) 1. ) Choo Teik Shiong 2. ) GOH SEE KWONG 3. ) NG YIN CHING 4. ) YAP PEI LEE 5. ) TAN SUET FONG 6. ) YAP CHEE WEE

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-30-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-30-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the proper measure for calculating the remaining LAD was as submitted by the respondents pursuant to PJD Regency (LAD calculated from date of booking fee); applying post-Obata-Ambak authorities and having regard to the parties' submissions (including appellant's concession), the Sessions Court order was varied and reduced to the sums calculated from booking dates; appeal allowed in part and no order as to costs.
10 Jun 2025

EKOVEST CAPITAL SDN. BHD. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI PROMPT CAPITAL SDN. BHD.) 1. ) Choo Teik Shiong 2. ) GOH SEE KWONG 3. ) NG YIN CHING 4. ) YAP PEI LEE 5. ) TAN SUET FONG 6. ) YAP CHEE WEE

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-30-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-30-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court varied the Sessions Court order and awarded liquidated damages limited to the period between payment of the booking fees and the SPA dates as calculated under the PJD Regency principle; the Court found the Respondents were entitled to those sums despite the EoT having been incorporated and, on the facts and submissions, reduced the developer's liability to the specified amounts and declined to disturb that entitlement on limitation or estoppel grounds to the extent awarded.
8 May 2025

1. ) YEOH CHEONG YEOW 2. ) JIMMY ONG KIM HENG GLOMAC SEGAR SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-775-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-775-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Plaintiffs used the wrong mode of proceedings: the validity of the 29.06.2018 Letter granting EoT is an administrative matter that must be challenged by judicial review and by joining the relevant public authorities; absent quashing, the EoT and the amended SPA clauses remain valid; proceeding by writ in these circumstances constituted abuse of process and the claims were dismissed.
24 Feb 2025

Chen Boon Feng & 26 Others PLATINUM EMINENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-113-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No triable issues were raised; LAD is calculated from the date of booking fee where payment preceded SPA as binding Federal Court authority establishes; the KL High Court quashing of EOT3 is final for purposes of this claim and Defendant cannot collaterally attack it; Defendant's counterclaim for abuse of process discloses no reasonable cause of action and is struck out.
2 Dec 2024

G.C.S FURNISHING SDN BHD MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

JA-11BNCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-11BNCvC-7-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Magistrate erred by failing to give proper judicial appreciation to contemporaneous documents and testimony. On the balance of probabilities the respondent failed to prove a valid force majeure event or entitlement to EOT because the extension letters lacked the requisite independent opinion by the proper certifier and TNB letters did not corroborate nationwide shortages or administrative procedural causes. The delay was attributable to the respondent's own failures; therefore the appellant was entitled to LAD and the Magistrate's decision was set aside.