Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity and contribution

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

1. ) Zeti Ismarizan Binti Isa 2. ) SHAHRUDDIN BIN MOHAMAD NOR 3. ) Rozana Binti Basir 4. ) Mohd Noor Sam Bin Kasah 5. ) Nor Fariza Binti Ngah 6. ) Hassannuddin Bin Sulaiman SPRING ENERGY SDN BHD PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) PERSATUAN PENDUDUK BUKIT DA

Citation

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-24-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The CSR agreement contained a condition precedent requiring landowner consent which was not fulfilled; there was no actual or ostensible authority from the Plaintiffs for the Association to permit works; Defendant therefore committed trespass and breached a duty of care by proceeding without verifying consent; Defendant cannot recover indemnity or contribution from the Third Parties nor prove deceit; appropriate remedy is general damages of RM100,000 to each Plaintiff and costs as ordered.
16 Dec 2025

TOP CAPITAL VENTURES SDN BHD KOK MEE YEN PIHAK KETIGA HLL MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD

Citation

AA-A72NCvC-486-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCvC-486-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Leave to issue the Third-Party Notice was granted because the Defendant disclosed a prima facie claim for indemnity grounded on her pleaded employment relationship and alleged instructions such that there exists a sufficient and arguable nexus with the Proposed Third Party; no serious prejudice from delay was demonstrated and the court properly exercised its discretion under Order 16 applying the modest prima facie threshold rather than resolving substantive liability.
22 Aug 2025

FGV PRODATA SYSTEMS SENDIRIAN BERHAD 1. ) NEC CORPORATION OF MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD 2. ) NEC CAPITAL SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD PIHAK KETIGA Shinryu Co Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCC-139-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-139-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found delivery occurred to the contractual recipient Hualang at the Maju Intan Plant as evidenced by the Shinryu delivery order signed and stamped by Hualang, the plaintiff's own contemporaneous packing list/checklist/certificate of completion and, critically, the plaintiff CEO's email confirming personal verification; therefore representations were not false, plaintiff did not rely on false representations, plaintiff is estopped by its conduct and delay, the misrepresentation claims fail, the HPA remains valid, the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim lacked…
19 May 2025

KORIDOR PADU SDN BHD 1. ) LEMBAGA GETAH MALAYSIA 2. ) KLIA ASSOCIATES SDN. BHD. 3. ) KLIA CONSULTANCY SERVICES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22C-100-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-100-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On construction of the written contracts the PDP (2nd and 3rd defendants) contracted directly with the plaintiff as employer; LGM was at most the paymaster and not a contracting party, so plaintiff has no direct contract claim against LGM; plaintiff breached Contract 1 and 2 by failing to procure the required Performance Bond (condition precedent), that failure amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling PDP to validly terminate; only IPC No.2 (RM4,453,320.95) was found payable on the evidence; IPCs 3–5 were not certified by the SO and are disallowed; retention sums were lawfully forfeited und…
17 Jan 2025

JADE ESERVICES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD 1. ) RC LOGISTICS SDN BHD 2. ) DANNY CHUA CHENG HEE (BERDAGANG SEBAGAI PEMILIK TUNGGAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA GO RUSH EXPRESS) PIHAK KETIGA RC Logistics Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-27NCC-42-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-27NCC-42-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that Go Rush collected the COD amounts (admissions and tracking data), was unjustly enriched by retaining those sums, and failed to provide acceptable justification or proof of remittance. RC Logistics contracted with the Plaintiff to provide a one-stop delivery service to Brunei and remained primarily responsible under the Service Agreement and Addendum for remittance of COD sums despite engaging Go Rush; accordingly RC Logistics breached its contractual obligations and is liable to the Plaintiff, but RC Logistics is entitled to indemnity from…
4 Dec 2024

KIAN HO BEARINGS (M) SDN. BHD. 1. ) WONG FOCK MANG 2. ) CHI YI AUTOMATION SDN. BHD. 3. ) CHIN YOKE KOON 4. ) WONG WAN YU 5. ) CHIN GEOK MOOI 6. ) KAI CHEE INDUSTRIAL SDN. BHD. 7. ) LAI MOON CHIEN 8. ) TEO CHEE BOON 9. ) CHENG HANG WEI 10. )

Citation

WA-22NCC-84-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-84-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The earlier Declaration only removed jurisdiction to serve third parties outside Malaysia under the Order 11 Rule 1 gateways in relation to indemnity and contribution claims; it did not preclude the Court from exercising jurisdiction under section 23(1) CJA 1964 to hear a distinct counterclaim (abuse of process and conspiracy) where at least one defendant resides in Malaysia; accordingly the application to strike out/dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction fails.
6 Nov 2024

Tan Sri Dr Mohd Irwan Serigar Bin Abdullah Azmi Bin Tahir

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1573-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1573-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court misdirected itself in striking out the third‑party proceedings. Given the pleaded factual matrix, the nature of the allegations and the interlocutory history (including document disputes), the third‑party claims against the former CFO and co‑directors were not properly summarily disposed of for delay or for failing to disclose a triable case; the matters of joint tortfeasance, indemnity and contribution require trial and may be remedied by amendment; consequently the High Court decision of 6 September 2024 was set aside and the applications to strike ou…
6 Nov 2024

Tan Sri Dr Mohd Irwan Serigar Bin Abdullah 1. ) DATUK KAMAL BIN MOHD ALI 2. ) DATO' SERI NORAZMAN BIN AYOB

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1572-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1572-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the Judicial Commissioner misdirected himself in striking out the third‑party notices against Azmi, Kamal and Norazman: the pleadings disclosed arguable causes of action for contribution/indemnity that require trial to determine issues of participation/procurement; delay was not inordinate in the factual matrix given document disputes and Mat Abu authority; therefore the High Court orders setting aside the third‑party notices were set aside and the third‑party proceedings reinstated.
3 May 2024

FELCRA BERHAD 1. ) ADLI SHARIDAN BIN SAHAR 2. ) NURUL ADZLIANA AINNIE BT ABDULLAH 3. ) MOHD IRWAN NIZAM BIN KHORIZAN 4. ) NORAZLINA MAT SAAD 5. ) SHARIDAN & CO 6. ) ADZLIANA & PARTNERS 7. ) NOR AZLAN BIN MD HURI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-425-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-425-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the court found plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities that defendants (individual solicitors, the two law firms, a salaried partner and a held‑out non‑solicitor partner) received and/or controlled client/purchase monies and failed to account or misapplied funds; partnership law and Partnership Act provisions render the firm and partners jointly and severally liable and permit judgment in the firm name; incoming or salaried partners held out as partners are liable for continuing obligations; plaintiff entitled to recover ascertainable losses of RM8,383,551.54, exemplary dam…
27 Jan 2023

Metreco Industries Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Lee Kam Fooi 2. ) Lee Wai Soon 3. ) Muhammad Fadhil bin Ab Wahid 4. ) Mohd Fairus bin Saidun PIHAK KETIGA Muhammad Fadhil Bin Ab Wahid

Citation

BA-22NCvC-454-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-454-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the 2nd Defendant trespassed the Plaintiff’s registered land and could not rely on unproven representations or alleged approvals; res judicata did not bar the Plaintiff because the earlier Suit 80 did not identify or finally decide issues as to the 2nd Defendant and new evidence emerged after criminal proceedings; contemporaneous communications and inconsistencies in the 1st Third Party’s evidence established that he induced the 2nd Defendant and is liable for indemnity and contribution.