Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied contract

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2023

GEONEX (M) SDN BHD 1. ) BAYU MINING SDN BHD 2. ) OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ

Citation

22NCVC-60-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-60-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that an implied contract existed between Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, that Plaintiff had performed by paying tributes and conducting mining operations, that the Defendants' termination was invalid because they acted inconsistently with the agreed payment terms and had in fact received payments, and therefore Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and costs of RM150,000.
29 Sept 2023

NESTLE PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAD LABS SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOW KIEN LOON

Citation

WA-22IP-31-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-31-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

QR codes per se are not subject to IP proprietorship; no implied contract arose post-trial so Mad Labs is not entitled to royalty based solely on printing; Mad Labs did possess the proprietary capability to control and sell the dynamic QR Code functionality and returned control at end of trial; Nestle unlawfully used the Mad Labs capability (control over dynamic redirection) from May 2015 to October 2018 without Mad Labs' permission and was negligent, entitling Mad Labs to compensation and damages (quantum to be assessed); Mad Labs was negligent in failing to disable/redirect harmful links an…
9 May 2022

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA APARTMENT NUSA PUNCAK ALL STRATA SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-103-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-103-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not plainly or obviously unsustainable; the Defendant's strike-out application under O.18 r.19(1) failed because the existence of an implied contract and the effect of the power of attorney involve factual inquiries for full trial; accordingly the application was dismissed with costs.
15 Jun 2021

CITYPOINT STRATEGIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 986817-U) TRITON EQUITY SDN BHD (In Liquidation) (COMPANY NO.: 958701-A)

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-108-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-108-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in entering summary judgment because the Respondent failed to prove existence and terms of an implied agreement on the affidavit record; contemporaneous documents and disputed annotations and correspondence raised bona fide triable issues including disputed amounts and a set-off claim under Companies Act s526 that required oral evidence; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the summary judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted for trial.
3 Nov 2020

NSG AYAM SEGAR (M) SDN BHD NO SYARIKAT :903361-P 1. ) LAW CHIN HAU NO. KP : 59051-02-5399 2. ) IDAH BINTI HUSSIN NO. KP : 700612-03-5210

Citation

NA-A52-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A52-9-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court found on the evidence (invoices, delivery affidavits, long course of dealings and issuance of a cheque for the specific outstanding amount) that an implied contract existed and plaintiff proved delivery and acceptance; defendant failed to show any triable issue or meritorious defence. Summary judgment was therefore entered for plaintiff for RM102,131.00 with costs of RM2,000.00.
24 Mar 2020

CCA ADVERTISING SDN BHD 1. LEMBAGA PERINDUSTRIAN NANAS MALAYSIA 2. KEMENTERIAN PERTANIAN DAN INDUSTRI ASAS TANI 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

CIVIL SUIT NO. JA-B51NCVC-04-11/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CIVIL SUIT NO. JA-B51NCVC-04-11/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found an implied contract existed: First Defendant requested Plaintiff to complete the video, Plaintiff completed and delivered it, First Defendant used the video, internal minutes (P10) and letter (P11) constituted admissions/acknowledgement of debt which gave rise to a fresh accrual under Limitation Act s26 so the claim was not time-barred; First Defendant estopped from denying liability, unjust enrichment established, and Plaintiff entitled to quantum assessment, RM20,000 general damages, interest and costs.

Malaysia Case Law

GEONEX (M) SDN BHD 1. ) BAYU MINING SDN BHD 2. ) OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 3. ) MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ

NESTLE PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAD LABS SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOW KIEN LOON

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA APARTMENT NUSA PUNCAK ALL STRATA SDN BHD

CITYPOINT STRATEGIES SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 986817-U) TRITON EQUITY SDN BHD (In Liquidation) (COMPANY NO.: 958701-A)

NSG AYAM SEGAR (M) SDN BHD NO SYARIKAT :903361-P 1. ) LAW CHIN HAU NO. KP : 59051-02-5399 2. ) IDAH BINTI HUSSIN NO. KP : 700612-03-5210

CCA ADVERTISING SDN BHD 1. LEMBAGA PERINDUSTRIAN NANAS MALAYSIA 2. KEMENTERIAN PERTANIAN DAN INDUSTRI ASAS TANI 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA