10 Nov 2025
The July 23, 2020 letter did not create an automatic monthly retainer; the RM2,000 invoices required demonstrable legal work which the Defendant failed to prove; the invoices were unsupported and unjustified; Defendant must refund RM12,000 with interest and costs.
8 Sept 2025
The Defendants failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden to show bona fide disputes of fact or documentary evidence requiring a trial; the Deed is a written contract whose interpretation is a question of law determinable on its terms; absent admissible evidence of any valid variation or subsequent event, conversion to a writ was unwarranted and the application to convert was dismissed.
18 Jun 2025
On the evidence and the clear written Tenancy Agreement the defendant breached contractual obligations by non-payment of rent and sewerage charges, there was no valid renewal after 31.12.2020, the defendant held over after proper notice and plaintiff lawfully exercised statutory option to claim double rent; the defendant failed to prove tenancy coupled with equity or entitlement to the equitable reliefs claimed, therefore plaintiff's claim succeeds and defendant's counterclaim fails.
18 Jun 2025
Defendant breached the express Tenancy Agreement by failing to pay rent from January 2021 and by failing to pay sewerage charges; there was no valid renewal after 31.12.2020 so no tenancy coupled with equity; Plaintiff validly terminated tenancy and, having given notice to quit which Defendant ignored, is entitled to delivery of vacant possession and to charge double rent from December 2021 until delivery; Defendant's counterclaim for relief against forfeiture, extension and renovation costs fails and is dismissed.
30 Apr 2025
Defendant failed to prove misrepresentation, fraud or that the main equipment was defective; the written contract governs, FOC items were collateral and non‑mandatory obligations (including installation) were not imposed; therefore Defendant remains indebted to Plaintiff for RM150,000 and Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
15 Apr 2025
Clause 5 required a written notice delivered and received not less than three months before expiry and an agreement on the revised rental; the Defendant did not show any written notice received by the (original) landlord and no agreement on revised rent was proved; therefore the option to renew lapsed, no renewed tenancy arose, Plaintiff entitled to possession and remedies sought; Defendant’s claim against the Third Party disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out.
18 Feb 2025
The Investment Agreement was unambiguous and obliged the First Defendant to repay the RM1,000,000 principal and pay the agreed 15% per annum targeted return at maturity independently of the company's profitability; the Agreement was not an unlawful moneylending transaction; the Second and Third Defendants executed enforceable guarantees and are jointly and severally liable for sums due; the Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed.
30 Jul 2024
The Court found the Plaintiff to be the beneficial owner and D1 to be a bare trustee; the 3rd Power of Attorney was conditional on full repayment by D2 and, given D2's failure to pay (and a subsisting default judgment), the 3rd PA is revocable and declared null and void. To enable completion of the project the Court ordered D1 to execute a fresh irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff with an indemnity clause and awarded costs against D2.
14 Jun 2024
Court held Plaintiff prevented Defendant from completing the Works by issuing continuous revisions and by withholding necessary information and payments; the unlimited revision clause was construed to operate up to P&ID Code 1 approval and thereafter changes were variations; the EoT clause did not cover the acts of prevention relied upon so time became at large; Defendant lawfully terminated at common law and was entitled to USD90,000 (3rd Milestone balance), USD8,000 (Addendum) and USD49,448 (Variation Claim) with interest at 5% p.a. from 6.1.2021 and costs RM70,000; Plaintiff's claims dismi…
6 Jun 2024
Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant hired or paid outside caterers and thus failed the primary allegation; conversely Plaintiff breached Clause 20.4A(d) by not paying 12.5% commission on private functions and failed to provide required sales reports, therefore Forfeiture and Termination Notices were valid and Defendant’s counterclaim is allowed in part entitling Defendant to sales reports, payment of commissions and costs; injunctions against Defendant are revoked.