Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Injunction

  • 25 Feb 2026

    SITI AMALINA AZIMAH BINTI AZHAR MOHD RAHMAT BIN ABDUL HAMID

    Citation
    BA-12B-17-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12B-17-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    When the impugned Facebook posts and videos are read as a whole in their context they convey serious defamatory imputations against the respondent; the appellant failed to prove truth or that the statements were fair comment and malice could be inferred from the manner and audience of publication; therefore the trial court's findings of liability, RM50,000 general damages, permanent injunction, deletion orders and order to publish an apology were legally justified and not plainly wrong on appeal.

  • 10 Feb 2026

    Soh Phei Ching 1. ) WM Wellmax Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. ) Heng Hua Kian 3. ) Heng Seng Soo

    Citation
    PA-24NCC-21-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    PA-24NCC-21-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application is dismissed because a consent judgment operates as a contract and cannot be varied unilaterally; the Defendants failed to show any vitiating factor (fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or duress), sought a substantive amendment beyond clarification (removal of the Plaintiff as director), and attempted to rely on a liberty-to-apply clause improperly while being in breach of the consent order, therefore the Court will not disturb the Consent Judgment.

  • 27 Jan 2026

    FIRDAUS WONG WAI HUNG MUHAMMAD MUNZIR BIN MUZAHAR

    Citation
    BA-A53CY-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BA-A53CY-8-05/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    The application for extension of time is granted because the delay was not mala fide, the defendant acted promptly upon learning of the suit, there is no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff that outweighs the interest of substantive justice, and the absence of a draft defence is not decisive when weighing all circumstances.

  • 26 Jan 2026

    MOHD SHAHRIM BIN MOHD TAMRIN RAZMAN HAKIMI BIN ABDULLAH @ RAZKUMAR PANEERSELVAM

    Citation
    BC-B53F-3-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    BC-B53F-3-09/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the impugned publications were defamatory of him: the March 2020 post was a fair comment in response to the plaintiff’s unverified WhatsApp/Facebook message and not mala fide; the July 2020 post referred to MIROS management generally and did not specifically refer to the plaintiff; the August 2020 tweet was a misunderstanding corrected the same day; plaintiff produced no independent witnesses or cogent evidence of reputational damage or malice. Accordingly the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

  • 16 Jan 2026

    1. ) LAI CHEE MIN 2. ) PHOONG SIEW MAE WONG CHOY MEE

    Citation
    BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12B-43-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Appellants established possession of Lots 32 and 60 on the balance of probabilities by oral testimony and contemporaneous documentary and photographic evidence; the Respondent’s restaurant operations produced persistent oily smoke/odour, prolonged preparatory noise and parking/traffic disruption that, in the residential locality, exceeded tolerable levels and constituted actionable private nuisance. The Sessions Court erred in requiring formal title and in rejecting the nuisance claim. Appeal allowed, Sessions Court judgment set aside, and a permanent injunction, costs and referral for as…

  • 14 Jan 2026

    1. ) A GANASAN A/L K ARUMUGAM 2. ) ABDUL HAFIZ BIN ABDUL RASHID @ ABD KHALID SYED YUSOF BIN SYED MOHD

    Citation
    BA-24NCC-113-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-24NCC-113-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found a strong prima facie case of oppression under s346 based on evidence of exclusion, attempts to remove directors and consolidate control; it rejected the illegality and non-joinder defences as insufficient to bar relief and held the court has discretion to grant appropriate remedies without joining all shareholders; accordingly the Plaintiffs' originating summons was allowed and the Defendant's interlocutory applications were struck out with costs.

  • 11 Jan 2026

    BEN SIDI MANAGEMENT SDN BHD FARIS IRWAN BIN SHAFPII

    Citation
    TA-B53CY-1-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    TA-B53CY-1-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Court found postings were defamatory in natural and ordinary meaning, referred to plaintiff despite absence of name because context identified the contractor, and were published to third parties on Facebook; defendant failed to establish justification and fair comment because of malice and inability to prove truth (CCC issued later did not validate defendant’s assertions regarding the state of workmanship at publication); accordingly plaintiff entitled to remedies: unconditional public apology (video with specified content), permanent injunction restraining repetition, general damages RM20,00…

  • 12 Dec 2025

    Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd Motor Fuel (M) Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    JA-24NCvC-259-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-24NCvC-259-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff validly exercised the unambiguous contractual option under Clause 1.4 by written notice within the prescribed three‑month period; the agreement contains no term disqualifying renewal for the alleged breaches, and damages would be inadequate because loss of brand recognition, customer association and goodwill cannot be quantified; therefore specific performance and a declaration of renewal were granted.

  • 1 Dec 2025

    VIRGIN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD Jayaganesh a/l Seraman @ Jayaraman

    Citation
    JA-24NCvC-1063-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-24NCvC-1063-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff holds the beneficial interest in Unit No 5 by virtue of the joint‑venture agreement and deed of assignment; equitable ownership confers locus standi to obtain declaratory relief and a perpetual injunction against trespassers; the Defendant produced no enforceable contract or payment to the Plaintiff and the third‑party affidavit is hearsay of no probative weight; additionally the unit is subject to Bumiputera restrictions making any sale to the Defendant void ab initio, therefore Plaintiff's claims succeed.

  • 26 Nov 2025

    PALM STAR SDN BHD Lembaga Pembangunan Langkawi

    Citation
    KA-22NCvC-17-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-22NCvC-17-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Plaintiff failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities; the proposed new lease and sale documents were unfinalised drafts and not binding contracts; Defendant's termination and refund (less agreed penalty) were reasonable given Plaintiff's failure to finalise despite extensions; Defendant's counterclaim is allowed and Plaintiff liable for damages and costs to be assessed.