Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Formation of contract

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

QINDAR BUSINESS SOLUTION HOLZERN FURNITURE SDN BHD

Citation

JB-12BNCvC-24-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12BNCvC-24-09/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found the appellant failed to prove a binding contract or the defendant's indebtedness on the balance of probabilities; the confirmation document did not amount to an admission of debt given doubts on provenance and inconsistency with auditor practice; the sole witness's credibility was undermined and the claimed quantum was uncertain, so no appellate intervention was warranted.
24 Feb 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that contractual obligations arose at the time of payment of booking fees/deposits given the documentary evidence and statutory purpose of the Housing legislation; PJD Regency is binding and mandates computation of the 36 months from the date of payment; Applicant failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety or clear computational error; judicial review dismissed.
30 Jan 2026

SINERJUTA SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) CHIA WONG CHIN 3. ) WEE ENG HOW

Citation

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-406-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Tribunal correctly found that the contract was formed at the time of payment of the booking fee/deposit as evidenced by receipts and pro forma documents; accordingly the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession is computed from that payment date; PJD Regency is binding and there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety nor demonstrable computation error warranting intervention; applications dismissed.
26 Sept 2025

Teminsri Construction Sdn.Bhd Central Spectrum (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-112-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Letter of Conditional Acceptance and contemporaneous RFP documents established only a conditional agreement; the essential condition (execution of a formal DRA within the prescribed time) was not fulfilled. Plaintiff bore the burden to prove a concluded contract and loss; it failed to do so. Defendant acted bona fide. Therefore no binding DRA existed and plaintiff's claims fail.
9 Jun 2025

MINDDIOS BERHAD TING CHIN SIONG

Citation

PA-12B-26-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-26-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's findings were not plainly wrong: plaintiff failed to prove existence of an agreement to transfer identifiable IP due to lack of specificity and contradictory evidence; burden of proof rested on plaintiff under ss.101-103 Evidence Act 1950; there was no agreement obligating defendant to pay the expenses and plaintiff's evidence about the expenses was inconsistent and included non-marketing items; appeal dismissed.
29 Nov 2024

SANG LIN TACKLE SDN BHD CHEN BOON SIONG

Citation

CA-A52NCC-35-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-A52NCC-35-11/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The invoices and delivery orders, signed/stamped by the defendant and supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp communications and account statements, established on the balance of probabilities that contracts were formed for the 24 invoiced deliveries; the defendant failed to prove the asserted conditional arrangement or timely rejections/returns to displace the documentary evidence; accordingly the plaintiff's claim as pleaded is allowed.
19 Aug 2024

SIDHU BROTHERS TRANSPORT SDN. BHD. SIME DARBY AUTO CONNEXION SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12BNCC-23-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-23-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellate Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the RM1,000 was a refundable pre-booking payment, not the 1% booking fee or 9% deposit specified in the Retail Customer Order; essential steps (hire-purchase approval, deposit/payment) required to form a binding contract were not completed, therefore no contract existed and no right to specific performance or damages arose; appeal dismissed and RM1,000 ordered refunded.
16 Jul 2024

HYPERWAVE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. USAHAWAN BERSAMA TEKNIK SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-2407-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-2407-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: a valid binding contract existed as parties intended to be bound; the Plaintiff's amendments corrected agreed technical/typographical matters and did not constitute a counter-offer; alternatively the Defendant accepted the amended PO by conduct (initialling, meetings, follow-ups); the agreement was not illegal because the supply was downstream and the Plaintiff was PETRONAS licensed/registered so no statutory prohibition attached to the parties' contract; therefore the High Court judgment was correct and appeal dismissed.
26 Oct 2023

SJS LOGISTICS (M) SDN. BHD MAYANG BAYUMAS SDN. BHD

Citation

AA-B52NCvC-13-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B52NCvC-13-03/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Quotation dated 5/11/2015 constituted the binding contract as defendants relied on account statements issued pursuant to it; the plaintiff's emailed statement and account showed acceptance of defendant's request to exclude two Volvo units (a variation by conduct) so plaintiff's recoverable balance was reduced to RM79,200; the defendant failed to prove its repair claims which were barred by the express "as is where is" term and were advanced as an afterthought without prior demand, therefore the counterclaim is dismissed.
12 Oct 2023

Garuda Searah Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) YEOW POOI MUN

Citation

WA-25-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-67-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court concluded that a binding contract was formed on 9.9.2017 when the Purchase Application Form (with clear identification of unit and price) and payments were made; accordingly the 36‑month period for delivery of vacant possession started from 9.9.2017; the Tribunal's conclusion on that point was not vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, but the Tribunal failed to transparently explain its computation of quantum of damages, so calculation of LAD should be on the basis that vacant possession was due by 9.9.2020 and delivered on 21.10.2021 less the days ex…