Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest on late payment

Legal area

Court

1 Oct 2025

ARIL KURNIA ENTERPRISE LION MINING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff established indebtedness on the basis of the finalized invoices amounting to RM643,860.08; the handwritten credit note was not proven as a finalized document and cannot operate as a set-off; plaintiff is entitled to contractual late payment interest at 8% per annum from date of default to judgment and 5% per annum post-judgment; costs awarded on the standard scale.
20 Jan 2025

TEE CHIN HENG Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah PENCELAH WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-15-236-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-15-236-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court accepted the assessors' adjusted comparable valuation and fixed market value at RM 435 per square metre (derived from common comparable Lot 5135 with adjustments), rejected WCE's low valuation for lack of basis, held severance did not arise because Portion A was included in acquisition, maintained 15% injurious affection but increased the monetary award proportionately to the higher market value, preserved development costs award, and ordered specified additional compensation, interest and fees.
10 Jan 2025

MZP CONSTRUCTION & TRADING MAGEALA A/P THARMALINGAM

Citation

BL-B52NCC-38-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-B52NCC-38-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Mr Kathir acted as agent with actual and apparent authority for AR Mega Winner Trading; defendant, through contemporaneous business documents and a letter of 24 January 2022, unequivocally admitted indebtedness; statements of account establishing a 1% per month interest clause and the defendant's conduct established entitlement to charge interest; the defendant failed to prove that the payment of RM1,448,918.98 was a full and final settlement; accordingly the defendant owes RM626,747.91 as at 1 March 2023 and the plaintiff's claim is allowed wit…
16 Oct 2024

TRELEAF MART SDN BHD YONG SERN TIMBER TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

TA-A52NCvC-5-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-A52NCvC-5-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the defendant's counterclaim for late-payment interest (RM41,179.02) succeeded because the payment schedule in Schedule A and clause 7 of the sale agreements unambiguously entitled the seller to contractual interest on overdue instalments; the plaintiff admitted or failed to challenge the defendant's unchallenged detailed calculation and could not rely on delayed CCC as a defence to avoid contractual late-payment remedies. Consequently the plaintiff was bound to pay the calculated RM41,179.02.
15 Aug 2024

QUANTUM HYRDROMECH SDN BHD NINE HUNDRED BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application because the adjudicator acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the payment claim and CIPAA, there was no material denial of natural justice (the matters complained of were factual disagreements or non-material procedural matters), and therefore the adjudication decision stood; accordingly the enforcement application was allowed because the adjudicated sum remained unpaid and there was no bar to enforcement under CIPAA and applicable case law.
2 Aug 2024

BURGESS RAWSON MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. ARMANEE CONDOMINIUM JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY

Citation

BB-B52NCvC-17-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-B52NCvC-17-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff proved a clear prima facie entitlement to the unpaid invoices by contemporaneous invoices and admissions, partial payments were accounted for, defendant's allegations and asserted set-off were unsupported and did not raise a triable issue; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate and granted with contractual interest and costs.
14 Jun 2024

KIENSON HARDWARE SDN. BHD. SANJUNG SEPANG SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-22-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to claimed interest because it did not produce the underlying invoices for 351 items and relied on unilateral debit notes; an adverse inference under Evidence Act s114(g) was properly drawn that the plaintiff's documents were inaccurate and the claim excessive. Separately, the plaintiff's acceptance of PO 32007913 was subject to a three‑month price validity communicated by email, so the plaintiff had no obligation to deliver at the original price after expiry and is not liable for the defendant's cover purchase losses.
14 May 2024

TANAH MESTIKA SDN. BHD. DESIGNLINK CONSULTANTS SDN. BHD.

Citation

BL-12ANCvC-14-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12ANCvC-14-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly found the respondent met Order 14 requirements and the appellant failed to raise any triable issue beyond unsupported assertions; the acceptance letter and invoices established a contract and indebtedness; therefore the appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment affirmed with costs.
29 Mar 2024

EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-50-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-50-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court erred in holding the suit premature because there was no evidence clause 5b was amended to require certification by MRCB Builders’ CEO, the certification requirement for payment was waived by conduct and inconsistent pleadings and admissions, EFCO proved the indebtedness of RM 540,829.39 with interest, and consequently EFCO was entitled to set off the security deposit; MRCB Builders’ counterclaim fails.
23 Oct 2023

T.E.M. COMBUSTION SDN BHD LATEX FORM SDN. BHD.

Citation

BL-22NCC-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCC-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's defenses were inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (delivery orders, invoices and payments) and were raised only after suit was filed, amounting to afterthoughts; defendant failed to show any triable issue of fact or law necessary to defeat the Order 14 application. Consequently the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the unpaid sum and accrued interest and costs.